1921-04-14

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton) presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Canadian National Railways and Shipping. He said:
Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Reid, that the Select Standing Committee on Canadian National Railways and Shipping be granted leave to sit while the House is in session, and that they be authorized to have the proceedings and such evidence as may be taken, printed from day to day, for the use of the members of the committee; and that Rule 74 relating thereto be suspended, in accordance with the report of the committee submitted this day.
Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of notice, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Orders in Council establishing regulations under section 17 of the Proprietary and Patent Medicines Act.-Hon. Mr. Calder.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72 to amend the Winding-up Act.
Mr. JACOBS:: Please explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The Bill is introduced at the instance of the Statistical Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce.

It contains two provisions, one providing for the preparation by the liquidator under the Winding-up Act of a statement of assets and liabilities, the second requiring him to furnish detailed information, including that statement, for the use of the Statistical Branch.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 73 to authorize the ratification and carrying into effect of the protocol of the sixteenth day of December, 1920, accepting the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice of the thirteenth day of December, 1920.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The minister might explain this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill contains two clauses. The first provides for the ratification of the protocol referred to, and the other confers power to do such things as may be necessary to carry it out. The Assembly at Geneva unanimously assented to the proposed plan for the creation of a Permanent Court of International Justice, under the provisions of the Treaty and the Covenant of the League, in virtue whereof a plan had been prepared; and it was provided that the Council of the League should submit such a plan for adoption by the pations who are members of the League. While there was some difference of opinion upon the question, the view was entertained by a large portion of the representatives- I may say, the Canadian representatives shared in that view-that it was not competent for the representatives in the Assembly to assent on behalf of their respective countries to the adoption of the plan submitted. They were all satisfied with it, but took the view that the provisions of the Covenant required submission of the plan to the members of the League themselves, that is to say, the various nations, and adoption by them. Pursuant to this view, a protocol was drawn up for signature by the different nations through their representatives, which protocol was made subject to ratification by the nations signing. Canada has signed the protocol subject to ratification. While, of course, the power of ratification is in the Crown, acting on the advice of its constitutional advisers, at the same time it is considered proper and desirable that the executive should not take upon itself to ratify without the authorization of

Parliament, and this Bill is submitted containing the provisions I have stated,-first, to authorize the ratification of the protocol, and second, to authorize the doing of the necessary things to carry it out. There will be found, annexed to the Bill as a schedule, the resolution of the Assembly, the protocol itself, which has been signed, and the statute, as it is called, containing the plan constituting the Court. That plan was, in the first place, prepared under the direction of the Council, and was accepted by the Council with certain amendments unanimously agreed to by the Assembly.


Mr. CAHILL (Pontiac) :: What extra
expense will this involve?


Charles Joseph Doherty: None.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask what would happen should the Canadian Parliament fail to ratify this protocol?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we should fail to
ratify the protocol Canada would not have approved the constitution of the Court, and would therefore not be entitled to invoke its jurisdiction or appear before it.


Samuel William Jacobs: It would not necessarily mean the resignation of the Government, I hope?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not consider that that would be implied. However, I am not apprehensive of that condition arising. I count upon the good judgment of my hon. friend, among others, to assure us that so desirable a project will be ratified.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: I was not here when the right hon. gentleman began his explanation, and I rise for the purpose of asking whether the United States has agreed to be represented on that Court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The United States was not represented at the Assembly and is therefore not called upon to take part in this ratification. It is, however, provided under the terms of the plan, or constitution establishing the Court, that countries mentioned in the schedule to the Covenant shall have access to that Court. The Court will therefore be open to the United States event though that country should not become a member of the League. I am not in a position to express any view as to what the action of the United States is likely to be. It is perhaps noteworthy that a very prominent part of the preparation of the constitution of the Court was

taken by one of the most distinguished lawyers of the United States, and that, so far as one can judge from the press, even those who did not warmly favour the League of Nations have expressed themselves in the highest terms with regard to the establishment of this Court.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Discussion of the measure may properly be deferred until the Bill has been printed. There is, however, one thing I desire to ask my right hon. friend. In answer to a question from this side the minister said there will be no expense involved. This is purely an honorary court is it not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was asked what
expense would be involved for Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Provision is made for payment of the expenses in connection with the Court of the League of Nations, but our contribution to the expenses of the League is determined under a clause of the covenant itself.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: On the Postal Union basis.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, on the Postal Union basis. In that connection I may say that it would appear to be quite settled that there will be a modification of the rule as regards the expenses generally which will undoubtedly result in a reduction of the contribution imposed upon Canada. I think I am safe in saying that, because there was a general recognition that the application * of the distribution of costs as established by the Postal Union operated inequitably as regards the League of Nations. It was quite understood that there should be a revision, and that that revision when it was made should so retroact as to make good any sums in excess that may have been paid under the existing provision.


William Stevens Fielding: If I may submit
another question: I understood my hon. friend to say that Canada will pay, but through the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, but will not pay anything more than its contribution to the League of Nations.


William Stevens Fielding: That contribution has been fixed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been fixed but will be revised in the manner I have described.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
CRIMINAL CODE-PROBATION	OF



OFFENDERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. MOW AT (Parkdale) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 74 to amend the Criminal Code (Probation of Offenders).
Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MO  WAT@: The code contains the provision for "suspended sentence." This Bill extends the provision to "probation." The probation system is now concurred in by all experienced judges and magistrates. The confirmed criminal usually commences with some petty offence. If you brand him then as a convict, you will probably assist him to a downward career. If you commit him to the friendly, but authoritative, care of a probation officer appointed by a province or a municipality you may save him for society. The percentages of reclamation under the "probation" system have been large.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY GOVERNOR GENERAL'S APPROVAL

Hon. Mr. REID:: At yesterday's
sitting of the House, when I introduced the resolution respecting the St. John and Quebec Railway, upon which Bill No. 71 is founded, I omitted to state, that the said resolution had been submitted to His Excellency the Governor General and had received his approval.
QUESTIONS:
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
FORT LENNOX SUN-DIAL Mr. DEMERS:
1.	Has the sun-dial at Fort Lennox, Ile-aux-Noix, St. John and Iberville county, been removed?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for such removal and where has said dial been moved to?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1 and 2. The sun-dial was removed from Fort Lennox last October for safety, and is now in the custody of the Permanent Force Unit at St. Johns, Quebec.
CENSUS COMMISSIONERS Mr. CHISHOLM:
1.	How many Commissioners of Census have been appointed for each of the provinces of Canada?

2.	How many of these Commissioners for each province are returned soldiers?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1 and 2.
	Number	Number Commis- sioners
	Commis-	Returned
Province [DOT]	sioners	SoldiersAlberta	13	6British Columbia.. ..	15	13Manitoba	15	4New Brunswick . . . .	11	4Nova Scotia	14	4Ontario	82	47Prince Edward Island	3	2Quebec	71	18Saskatchewan	16	iiCanada	240	109



THANKSGIVING DAT

Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received any communication from The Commercial Travellers Association of Canada requesting that the day fixed for Thanksgiving in the Dominion be a Monday in preference to any other day of the week?
' 2. Has any decision been reached by the Government in the matter?
3.	If so, what is the decision?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes. They suggested the second Monday in November, and that as the Armistice was signed on a Monday the celebration of the two occasions should be held on the same day.
2 and 3. The request will receive consideration when fixing the date of Thanksgiving Day.



BLOOD INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Did the estimate of 25,000 sheep, given in the Annual Report of the Indian Department for 1918, page 12, as being placed on the Blood Reserve by Greater Production lessees, turn out to be the correct number? If not, how many were there in 1918?
2.	How many sheep were grazed on the Blood Reserve by Greater Production lessees in 1919?
3.	Did the cattle-owning Blood Indians protest to the department or to any of its officers in the Spring of 1918 against the presence of the sheep on. their cattle grazing range?
4.	If so, what action was taken by the Government to meet their objections?
5.	Does the Government know how much hay was cut on the Blood Reserve by Greater Production lessees in 1918 and 1919? If so, what was the total for each year?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1 and 2. The department has no information, as the leases were given by area and not on the basis of the number pastured.
3.	Yes.

4.	Upon the matter being investigated the department was assured that there was no trouble and that everything was apparently satisfactory.
5.	No.


*Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 1.	In his report for the month of May, 1919. did the Indian agent of the Blood Reserve call the attention of his superior officers to the shortage of grass and hay on account of the reserve being pastured off?
2.	In his report for June, 1919, did the said Indian agent repeat with emphasis his warning of the shortage of the Blood Reserve of feed with which to winter the Indian cattle and horses ?
3.	In consequence of these two reports what action was taken by the Government to protect the Indian cattle interests?
4.	Independent of the Indian agent, was the attention of the Government called in 1919 to the fact that its changed methods of administration on the Blood Reserve were threatening the existence of the valuable Blood Reserve Indian cattle herd?
5.	If so, from whom was said advice received, on what date or dates, and what action was taken by the Government to meet the situation?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Action was taken to meet conditions, to provide for feed for cattle and to prevent Indians from selling their hay to settlers.
4.	Yes.
5.	From the head chief of the Blood band; received August 8, 1919; see answer to No.
3.



HIGHWAYS-QUEBEC

Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	For how many highways of the province of Quebec has the Minister of Railways approved survey plans in connection with federal grants under the Highways Act?
2.	What amount has been paid to the province of Quebec to date for said highways?
3.	What sums have been paid to each of the other provinces for the same purpose?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Eleven.
2.	$56,374.19 has been paid to the province of Quebec to date. Accounts now under audit provide for further payments, amounting to, approximately, $250,000.
3.	Ontario, $295,000; British Columbia, $86,446.52; Prince Edward Island, $40,264.79.



HIGHWAYS-GRANTS TO PROVINCES

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What different amounts did the Federal Government pay for highways to the provinces, out of federal grants, since the former decided upon an aid to the provinces for the building of good roads?
2.	Have certain provinces not as yet received any such grants? If not, why?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Ontario, $295,100; British Columbia, $86,446.52; Quebec, $56,374.19; Prince Edward Island, $40,264.79.
2.	The following provinces have not as
yet received grants for reasons specified: Nova Scotia-Action deferred pending report of provincial commission on expenditure of road moneys. New Brunswick- Agreements now with province for execution. Payments will follow in due course. Manitoba-Agreements now with province for execution. Payments will follow in due course.	Saskatchewan-Agreements recently signed. No statements received. Alberta-No project statements under the Act yet submitted.



DOMINION FINANCES

Hon. Me. BELAND:: 1.	What is the total expenditure (on all accounts) for the financial year ended March 31, 1921?
2.	What is the total revenue for the same year?
3.	What was the net national debt on March 31, 1920?
4.	What was the net national debt on March 31, 1921?


Hon.   S@: 1,	2 and 4. The accounts for the financial year ended March 31, 1921, have not yet been closed, and final figures are not available. The information desired will be presented in the Budget speech.
3.	$2,248,868,623.79. This figure is exclusive of non-active assets.



SUPERANNUATED OFFICERS

Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	Has the Government received a petition from superannuated Government officers, praying for an increase to their pensions on account of the cost of living in comparison to the cost at the time of their superannuation?
2.	Is the Government aware that the Imperial Government granted an increase recently to superannuated officials?
3.	If such petition has been received, what action, if any, will the Government take in the matter, and will they grant the prayer of the petitioners and either increase their superannuation or grant them a bonus similar to the action taken by the British Government?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Government is aware that an Act to authorize the increase of certain pensions was passed by the British Parliament in 1920.
3.	The Government's intention would be revealed in the presentation of appropriate legislation to Parliament. Up to the present the Government has not seen its
way clear to favourably entertain the proposals submitted by superannuated officials.



MIDK RIVER WATER RIGHTS

Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	When does the water right on the Milk river for irrigation purposes held by the A: R. & I. Company expire?
2.	Has the Government any intention of renewing or extending the water right?
3.	Has it been represented to the Government by certain proposed irrigation districts in Southern Alberta that this water right should be cancelled?
4.	If so, what is the view of the Government on this proposal?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	October 23, 1922.
2.	As the period for construction has not expired, no consideration has yet been given to renewing, or extending, the company's rights.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS *


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What was the cost of operating the Central Experimental Farm, and each of the branch farms of the system during the year 1920?
2.	What amount was paid in connection with each under the head of Civil Government?
3.	How much was paid for foremen and farm labourers respectively on each farm?
4.	How much was paid out for live stock and also for equipment for each farm during the said year?
5.	What was the revenue received from sales of live stock, and also from products on each of the said farms during the year 1920?


Mr. DUFF:: What work or duties did each official and clerk of the Fisheries Branch at Ottawa, who is in receipt of a salary of $1,300 or over, perform on first becoming attached to said branch of the public service?



NEWSPRINT-ALLEGED COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government has received any representations from newspaper publishers on the Pacific coast as to the difficulty of obtaining newsprint paper on account of an alleged combine among the paper manufacturers; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the Government to afford the necessary relief?


Arthur Meighen: I have received three telegrams, if I remember correctly, from Mr. Cromie, of the Vancouver Sun, complaining that the

price charged him for newsprint paper was too high, but containing nothing to indicate that there was anything in the nature of a combine, although it was indirectly alleged. The telegrams made out no case for action on the part of the Government.



INCOME TAX PENALTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Department of Finance has recently issued leaflets for the convenience of those subject to payment of income tax. Would my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) inform the House if there will be any extension of time beyond the 30th of this month in respect to the imposing of penalties for default in making income tax returns on or before that date?


Hon.   S@: I do not know whether my hon. friend has seen the pamphlet, but it is calculated to make comparatively easy a subject which, I admit, has been surrounded wtih a good many difficulties. We have on the Order Paper now a Bill which as soon as more pressing matters are out of the way I intend to introduce, and which will have the effect in some instances of removing the penalties my hon. friend refers to.



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CHISHOLM:: I wish to ask the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) when I may expect to get answers to certain questions which I asked on March 9 last?


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will send me a note of them I will ascertain the reason for the delay.



WAYS AND MEANS-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 42 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1922, was read the second time, and the House went into eim-mittee thereon-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
['I thought I made it clear enough. I said we intended to take up some of the Estimates that we have already entered upon; then, if there is any reasonable time left, we would take up Militia and Labour Estimates.']
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Chairman, when we were in committee on the resolution which preceded this Bill I availed myself of my right to ask questions about items

included in the Estimates, as you had ruled that it was the undoubted right of hon. members to ask such questions, but after about forty-five minutes' discussion upon one single item concerning the purchasing commission, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in a way which I thought then and still think was very arbitrary and highhanded gave notice of motion to apply the closure, and this prevented the asking of any questions concerning other items of the Estimates. In view of the fact I desire now to ask a few questions concerning those items, as I have the right to do. On page


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The hon.
member (Mr. Lapointe) would certainly not to be entitled to ask questions on clause 1; he would be entitled to do so on clause 2, which provides for the granting of certain sums.


Ernest Lapointe: I have made these
remarks on clause 1 because the Bill has not yet been distributed and I was under the impression that it contained only one clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 1 carry?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection
to the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2

$69,937,203.70 granted for 1921-22:
['I have no objection\nto the clause.']
Ernest Lapointe: On page 63 of the
main Estimates item 306 reads:
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments. Appointments for the purpose may be made without reference to the provisions of the Civil Servioe Act.
The vote in 1920 was $1,200,000, and we are asked this year to provide $2,000,000 for the same purpose, although we had been told that the Business Profits War Tax Act would be repealed. I should like to know from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance the reason for this increase of almost $1,000,000 for administration.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The cost of administering the tax has grown by reason of the fact that we are attempting to get a more thorough collection. The service has been improved to such an extent that, speaking from recollection, I think I am safe in saying that additional tax amounting to $16,000,000 has been collected this year, and the cost which the collection entails, again

speaking from recollection, is approximately two per cent of the amount collected.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the staff of the Income Tax Commissioner appointed under the Civil Service Commission; and if not, why not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not
appointed under the Civil Service Commission. This is a new service, and changes constantly have to be made. While I have no doubt that when the staff has been finally organized it will come under that Commission, as yet it has not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many officers are there?	[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the particulars are given in the details of Civil Government. I will look them up for my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: On page 54, item 258, there is provision for $40,000 for a "National Industrial Conference and Commissions arising from 1919 Conference". Is it the intention of the Government to call another national industrial conference this year?


Arthur Meighen: I do not pretend to be in a position to give details now; I shall be able to do so on the Labour Estimates. But I know that the National Industrial Conference is to be called again; that is what this is provided for. Whether it is to be continued from that on I cannot say at the moment, but I will let the hon. gentleman know. This item is for such a conference as was held before, and I see that the minister expects the cost to be $10,000 less.


Ernest Lapointe: If such a national industrial conference is called, will the representatives of the National Labour Union of the province of Quebec be invited to sit at that conference?


Arthur Meighen: Well, I do not think my hon. friend gives them quite the full title.


Ernest Lapointe: National and Catholic.


Arthur Meighen: I thought it was called the National Catholic Labour Union.


Ernest Lapointe: I will with pleasure say "National Catholic Labour Union", if it satisfies my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: That is the correct name, that is all. I could not answer the question. I will get the answer, though, for the hon. member on the Labour Estimates. I have not asked the minister about it; I have never discussed it with him at all. Were they invited to the last one?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think they were.


Mr. EDWARDS :: I am being asked a good many questions about the income tax; there seems to be considerable dissatisfaction with the manner in which it is being collected. Under the present system a man is obliged to assess himself, and then when he fills out his form he must send with it a certain percentage of his tax-twenty-five per cent I think-and the balance must be sent at the rate of so much a month for the next couple of months. The thing that seems wrong about that is this: a person makes out the form, as he thinks, correctly, he finds that his tax is $60 and he sends one quarter of that, $15, with his filled-out form and it goes into the tax collector's office. They go over the form and find that the tax should be $64; therefore they find that he has failed to send in the twenty-five per cent as required by law. He is short one dollar and they have no recourse except to subject him to a fine. I find quite a number of persons objecting to this form of collection. They think-and I must say that I agree with them-that the tax office should make the assessment, and should send a man his bill showing how much tax he should pay, and if he thinks they are wrong he should in all fairness have an opportunity to take the matter up and discuss it with them. But to oblige him to assess himself and then subject him to a fine if he makes a mistake strikes me as manifestly unfair, illogical, and wrong all through. I do not think it should be done in this way at all. I do not know who is responsible for the idea. Many people who have to make out these forms have had no legal training and are not chartered accountants, and because of their liability to fine they go to others who are supposed to have expert knowledge and get them to make out their forms or assist them in making them out. This, of course, involves the payment of a fee. I am credibly informed that a member of the staff of the tax collector's office at Hamilton-I do not know how long he had been on the staff- gave up his position there and opened an office as expert adviser to those who were finding difficulty in making out their tax forms. Well, if a man can leave a fairly good job and find it advantageous to open up an office to assist men who are meeting with difficulty in making out their income tax returns, it does seem to me that a strong effort should be made to simplify the forms. Is it the intention of the Government to continue this present system of

collecting the income tax, or is a change contemplated?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The department is trying to make the collection of income tax a reality; to have everybody pay who ought to pay. I frankly confess that any task of that kind is both unpopular and difficult. The department is also endeavouring to keep down the cost of collection and to take in a maximum amount of money with a minimum of outlay, also to render the bills, because finally they have to be rendered so that liabilities may be met, at the same time for everybody in the country. In order to do that, and in the first instance, to keep down expense, if we are going to save the very-large amount of interest that in the past has been lost, we must get the bills out at a very much earlier date. Hon. gentlemen know that while in the past returns have been made out in the spring, bills have not been sent out until the late autumn, and that, even then, bills have not been sent out to everybody at the same time; there have been delays. The real reason, of course, is simply this, that on the returns being made, those returns have to be checked, and after that bills have to be sent out. If we had a sufficient staff to do all that work quickly and to get out all those bills together, the cost of collecting the tax would be very serious, I am afraid. We are trying then to get returns in at an early date and, in order to save interest, to get in as much money as possible, and yet not increase unduly the cost of collection. To do this involves the ratepayer doing, in the first instance, what he has always done, that is make out the return which shows his real income, and after having made out that return, pay twenty-five per cent of what he ought to pay under it. My hon. friend is quite right. There are serious penalities in the Act; but those penalities do not apply to mistakes or errors of judgment, they are directed to false returns. In other words, the penalities apply to that part of the matter which the ratepayer ought to know about, namely, what is his income, not to any error that he may make in forwarding his initial contribution. This method of taxation is not a new one; a similar method applies in the United States, and it is a method which, if it had been applied earlier in Canada, ought to have materially assisted the country's finance without unduly hurting or, indeed, at all hurting the ratepayer.


William Cameron Edwards: Do they make collections in the United States in the same manner?
TMr. Edwards.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. I admit there is a great deal of doubt and uncertainty about the thing, but there always is in connection with anything that is new. In order to get rid of that doubt and uncertainly, I have got out those special instructions which have been widely distributed, and I do not think anybody need be at much difficulty in making out the tax returns with those special instructions before them. But if they are wrong simply in the computation, as I said before, they are not in any way subject to the severe penalities prescribed by the Act.


Mr. NESBITT:: The Act says that they are subject. Why are they not? Is the minister going to continue the collection of the taxes as mapped out in the Act of last year? We have to forward our returns by April 30, and if we are wrong, we are subject to a fine; the Act says that we are.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
unfortunate in not making myself clear. The return has to be put in, and if the return is a false one, if information is kept back, if the income is greater than represented, the heavy penalties prescribed by the Act attach. But those penalties, as I have said before, do not attach to errors made in the computation of the taxes due on that income. As I said before, in answer to questions already put, it is the intention of the Government to bring down, at this session of Parliament, an Act which is now on the Order Paper and which would have been proceeded with before now, had it not been for the pressure of other business and the impossibility of getting on with it. It has been pointed out that we have more employees. We have, and perhaps I ought to give to the House a little information in connection with what we are doing as regards income tax.
I will not go back very far. Of course, the great thing is to get your collections in as quickly and as regularly as you can in order to save interest, and to try to get the money quickly and equitably from everybody in the country. In 1919-20 the total collection of income tax up to February 28, 1920, was $9,982,140. The total collected this year up to February 28, amounted to $32,666,940. Let us take the next ten-day group. Last year, up to March 10, 1920, the total collected was over $11,-000,000-I do not give the odd figures: the total collected up to the same date of this year was $35,000,000. On March 20, the next ten-day period, the total collected last year was $11,000,000 and this year it was $36,000,000. The figures are not quite complete up to the end of the fiscal year,

because there are always payments which come in from the outside and which take a little time after March 31, before they are taken into the books; but if we deal merely with payments which were taken into the books on March 31, last year, the total amount collected was $17,000,000, and this year it was $38,000,000. It costs us, of course, a little more to collect $38,000,000 than it did to collect $17,000,000, and we hope to improve further the collection.


Frank S. Cahill: I wish to ask a question; but before doing so, I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) if he takes the ground that all departments are open for discussion without a motion to go into Supply on departments that have not already been considered. Because I do not wish to put a question on a department that has not been considered properly before, unless it is the intention of the Government to take the ground that we are or will be in Supply on any item that the Government chooses to take up.


Arthur Meighen: The question is a
question for the Chair at the proper time. It is not a question for the Prime Minister. We are not in Supply now, but in Committee of the Whole on the Bill, and the question does not affect what we are doing at all.


Frank S. Cahill: I wish to ask the Prime
Minister what he meant last night when he said:
We are ready for all Supply now, except that we will not go into External Affairs.
He must have meant something; I do not suppose he is always joking; and I want to know what he meant by that statement last night.


Arthur Meighen: I meant exactly what
I said. It is the intention of the Government to go into any Supply except External Affairs. The Estimates of some departments have passed. We are ready with the others. If objection is taken, we can decide the matter then. That question has nothing to do with the Bill upon which we are now in Committee of the Whole.


Frank S. Cahill: I think it has. If the
Government take the ground, and they are sustained by the Chair, that all departments have been moved into Supply and that they can therefore take up the Estimates of any department on a Thursday or Friday without a motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, that might have a considerable bearing on this Bill. I would like to know the attitude of the Government on that question. It is not so much
the ruling of the Chair as the attitude of the Government that I want to know. I would like 'an answer.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The ruling that the
Chairman should give at the present time is that the question asked by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) is not relevant to the clause which is now under consideration. The Committee is discussing clause 2 of the interim Supply Bill and the debate must be relevant to the clause. In fact there are greater limitations to the rights of hon. members upon the different stages of an Appropriation Bill than is the case upon other bills. Subjects involving expenditure which is not provided for by the Bill cannot be suggested and discussed. The conduct of the officials or of the departments who receive the supply grants cannot be challenged. Amendments cannot be moved to clauses or schedules to effect the omission of an item or the reduction of the amount of any grant or an alteration in the destination of any grant. The enacting words of the bill cannot be amended. Subject to the above limitations, hon. members have the right to ask questions concerning all matters for which grants are provided by the bill now before the Committee. The Chairman cannot at this time give any other ruling.


Frank S. Cahill: I quite agree with your
ruling, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to delay the committee by asking questions now, if it is understood that the different departments will be moved into Supply as has been the practice in the past. Otherwise, we will have no opportunity of knowing what is to be taken up from day to day, and as the Prime Minister knows now that the committees are sitting while the House is in session, it is impossible for hon. members to attend to their duties in the committees and at the same time be present in the House when Estimates in which they are interested are taken up. I wish to know what the Prime Minister intends to do in the future. It is quite possible that he has the right under his closure methods to take up any department at any time, and jump from one department to another just as he pleases. I do not wish to ask the Prime Minister to reply to anything that is not within the rules, but if we knew what the procedure would be, I think it might facilitate the passage of this Bill. There are a number of questions I would like to put now if I am to be precluded from putting them later. If the Prime Minister would say that it is not

his intention to break away from the usual practice, I do not think we would find it necessary to put quite so many questions at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I think I understand
what the hon. member wants. He wants to know if notice is to be given of the Supply we intend to go into each day, so that he will be able to be present.


Ernest Lapointe: If my right hon.
friend will permit me, what my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), and what I myself also, want to know is whether all the departments will be considered as having been taken up once this Bill is passed; whether the Government will be at liberty to take up the Estimates of any department on Thursdays and Fridays even if they have not been taken pp previously.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
wants my opinion, I have no objection to giving it. I gave it the other day. My opinion is that as hon. gentlemen insisted that the interim Supply had that effect on Thursdays and Fridays, the rule must necessarily work both ways, and the Government has that right. I pointed that out at the time. I have no objection to giving my opinion. I say frankly now to the hon. gentleman that that would necessarily be the effect, in my view. I am not asking the Chair to rule on it, because the question really does not come up now.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend knows that in previous years interim Supply was always granted after an understanding between the parties, and that it never interfered with the rights of the Opposition with regard to motions of want of confidence on days when the House had to be moved into Committee of Supply.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I think it always took place on some other day than Thursday or Friday, so that question did not arise.


Ernest Lapointe: Whether it was on a Thursday or a Friday is not the point;
I do not think that has any bearing on what we are discussing now. I say that hitherto it has been considered that an interim Supply Bill did not affect in any way the rights of members of the House with regard to the balance of the Estimates. It was never considered that because an interim Supply Bill had been passed the Estimates of all departments had been taken up. What we want to know is whether my right hon. friend and the Government will consider that when this

Bill passes they have the right to take up any Estimates on Thursdays and Fridays that ha.ve not been taken up previously in the present session, such as the Estimates of the Labour Department, the Interior Department, the Militia Department, and many others. As my hon. friend f!rom Pontiac has said, this may have some bearing on the discussion on the present Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I have answered that. I say that in my view we undoubtedly have that right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad to see my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) in his seat. Not long ago there was a judgment of the Privy Council altering the respective positions of the Federal Government and the provinces as regards the fisheries. I understand that under this judgment the department of my hon. friend, from May 1, next, will issue the licenses for salmon fishing in the lower St. Lawrence-I am speaking for my own constituency and that of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). I wanted to know whether my hon. friend intends to appoint fishery officers for that purpose, and not only in connection with the salmon fisheries but other fisheries which hitherto	have been under
the jurisdiction	of the provinces.
I want to know, first, whether my hon. friend will appoint, or has appointed, new fishery officers; and, secondly, whether he will not consider the desirability of renewing, in favour of the same persons, the salmon licenses that have been held by certain families from time immemorial. In my opinon it would be a grave injustice if, because the control of these licenses has been transferred from the Provincial Government to the federal authorities, the old holders of salmon licenses were deprived of rights which they have enjoyed for such a long time. I hope my hon. friend will not regard as extinct the rights in this matter of the people of the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe. The salmon stands in my province are situated chiefly in these two counties, and I hope the minister will renew the licenses in favour of the old holders.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I may be
dense, but I should be glad if the hon. member would explain what connection there is between salmon fishing and the subject before the committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are voting one-sixth of the Supply, which includes fisheries, the payment of salaries, disbursements to fish-

ery officers, etc.; and I notice an increase of $44,000 on a particular item, evidently to cover the additional expenditure entailed by the judgment of the Privy Council. My hon. friend should look at item 237 in the Estimates. I do not rise to delay the business of the House, but I think that information on the point I have raised, which is important, should be given, in the interests of my constituency, before this is carried.


Michael Clark: I want my hon. friend to understand that I have not the slightest objection to the point he has raised so long as it is in accordance with the rules. I do not know, as a matter of fact, where we are; we cannot hear what is going on.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: My hon. friend is quite right when he states that owing to a recent judgment of the Privy Council of England the fisheries of all tidal waters and navigable streams leading from the sea are now vested in the Federal Government. The Department of Marine and Fisheries on and after the first day of May, is going to take over the fisheries so allotted, and official notice has been sent through the proper channel to the Provincial Government. I am not yet prepared to say what we shall do with the old officials and fishery officers, nor do I know what the department will do in regard to the old licenses for salmon fishing or the catching of any other kind of fish to be found in these waters. Every consideration will be given to the old holders of these licenses, but I will not say that, because they have held these licenses for a long time, therefore, ipso facto, the department will renew them. All I can say is that due regard will be had to the length of time the licenses have been held.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: I do not see why any change should be made in the present system as it applies to the Atlantic coast. The fisheries on that coast have been administered by the Federal Government for many years, and the fact that the Privy Council has now decided that the Federal Government has a right to administer the fisheries throughout the Dominion, should not disturb the conditions at present existing on the Atlantic coast. Do I understand that the decision of the Privy Council will make any difference in the administration of the law in the Maritime Provinces?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That decision appertains to the province of Quebec. There has been for many years an outstanding difference between the province of Quebec and the Federal Government, and the change which my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has brought to my attention does not in any way affect the rights of Nova Scotia.	*


Mr. MICHAUD:: The river Restigouehe separates Quebec from New Brunswick, and I understand that fishing rights on that river have been granted to many American capitalists as well as Canadians. That river being interprovincial, would the federal law not conflict with the provincial regulations?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot add anything more to what I have already said. I think I have already made the situation clear as regards the province of Quebec. As regards New Brunswick, the fisheries in that province will be administered in the future as in the past, under the direction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.	,


Pius Michaud: The minister does not understand me. The river Restigouehe is interprovincial, and under the present decision of the Privy Council the federal law will control the rights of fishing in this river, although for a considerable distance the river runs through Quebec.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The fisheries on this river, in the province of Quebec, will be administered in the same way as the federal authorities have administered the fisheries in Nova Scotia and New Bruns. wick.


Pius Michaud: That is to say, they will be administered as they were previous to the decision of the Privy Council.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. Does he think that by moving this resolution for interim Supply, he circumvents the difficulty of moving on Tuesday or Wednesday to go into Supply? If he takes that position, what would prevent him from going into interim Supply, say, on April 1, if the House had met, let us say, on March 17? If the House had met on that day, and the Address had lasted until April 1, does he argue that he could then have moved a resolution for interim

Supply, before Supply had been moved at all? Does he think that by this ingenious method of closure he could obviate the necessity of moving that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into Supply on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that he would then have the right to take up any items in any department he liked on Thursday and Friday, following that up with his closure if he wished to continue discussion from Thursday at three o'clock until he completed all Supply? Does the Prime Minister contend that it is within the rights of the Government, under the present rules, to do that?


Arthur Meighen: I understand precisely what my hon. friend desires to know, but I will put his question in a form that will make my answer better understood. It will be recalled that when the House took up, I think it was last Thursday, the question of interim Supply objection was raised by the Opposition on the ground that inasmuch as interim Supply spread the vote over all departments, and as some of the departments had not been taken up in Committee of Supply at all on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, we could not go on with interim Supply on Thursday.
I took the ground that it would be unwise to hold that that was the case, and that if it were the case technically, it would be unwise to follow such an interpretation, because it was out of harmony with the intent of the rules and if adopted would bring about this consequence:	that of
making it possible by going into interim Supply on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday to virtually abrogate the whole rule because thereafter we could go in on any department on Thursday or Friday. Notwithstanding that I pointed out this consequence, and nothwithstanding the fact, which I still say is indisputable, that there was in reality, no more substantial objection to having interim Supply on Thursday than on Tuesday, hon. gentlemen opposite insisted on their course and' brought themselves into the position in which they are now. Therefore, I give my opinion-although when the issue comes up it is the Chairman who decides-that undoubtedly we have the right if we go into interim Supply on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, to go into Supply on any department at all covered by interim Supply on Thursday or Friday; undoubtedly that follows.
I give that as my opinion merely as to what the rule implies. Now let me add again: I do not think it was" ever the Plr. Cahill.]
intention of the rules that that should be the case; I do not think it was ever the intention of the rules that interim Supply should be objected to on Thursday or Friday. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not observe the intention of the rule then, but no doubt they are very anxious about it now. While that is undoubtedly the case I do not say that the Government intend to abuse the advantage. It may be an excellent thing to have a giant's strength but sometimes tyrannous to use it like a giant. Therefore, when the point comes up, as it will come up, in Supply, I do not think we will have any difficulty at all in arranging the matter satisfactorily. It is the intention of the Government to go into such Supply as has been already considered on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, as far as we possibly can. We will propose terms that will be fair and that I hope will be satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: The Minister of
Finance stated a moment ago that appointments to the Income Tax Service were not made through the Civil Service Commission. Will he now state how these officers are appointed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: All appointments to that service are made by the department.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I understood the minister to say they are made by the department, but must the appointments be recommended to the minister?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The appointments are all made on the recommendation of the chief officers of the department. It is a new service and we do not know exactly how far we may have to go, and whether it may be looked upon as permanent. However, we are working up a permanent organization that we hope will prove efficient.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The minister stated that recommendations for appointments were sent in to the chief officers of the department. If a member of the House makes a recommendation can it be accepted by the department?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no
doubt that not only can such a recommendation be received but that it will receive every fair, proper and due consideration.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The minister stated that the collection of income taxes amounted last year to $17,000,000, and that up to

March last the collections were $38,000,000. Will he be good enough to say what was the cost of making the collections for last year and this year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The vote last year amounted to $1,200,000. This year the request is for $2,000,000. I am sorry to say I think there will have to be a supplementary vote to last year's amount.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: But $2,000,000 is the total amount for this year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: What is the amount of the income tax'collected in the different cities of Canada this year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot give my hon. friend that information at the moment, although I think that several returns dealing with the subject have already been tabled. I do not know whether my hon. friend's question has been asked before, but I will be very pleased to get the information for him if at all possible.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I would like to get also the amount of income tax paid in the city of Quebec. I am particularly interested in learning what it is.
Upon Mr. Rinfret and Mr. Gould rising at the same moment.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to my hon. friend from St. James that the Chairman in recognizing speakers must alternate between the different sides.


Mr. RINFRET:: I shall be pleased to give way to my hon. friend from Assiniboia.


Mr. GOULD:: Following a thought suggested to me by remarks from the hon member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) I would ask the minister if he does not think it would be a good idea if an officer were appointed in each of the rural municipalities for the purpose of collecting the income tax and compiling the records. I believe the farmers would be favourable to the appointment of an officer in each municipality to whom they could make their returns. I should also like to ask the minister, following up a question that was asked last year, if any arrangement has been entered into whereby individuals living in Great Britain and receiving incomes from Canada shall pay income tax to this country?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I had wished to put a question to the Minister of Marine but I see that he has now left the chamber. Per-
Haps the Minister of Finance can give me the information I want. I see on page 48 of the Estimates this item:
Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $2,500,000.
As compared with 1920-21 there is an increase of $500,000 in this vote. Last year we were told by the Minister of Marine that the cruisers had come from the British Admiralty in the nature of a gift which we could not very well refuse, but that $2,000,000 would be sufficient for their upkeep. Possibly before we vote one-sixth of this increase the Minister of Finance will tell us why the extra half million dollars is needed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The original amount requested by the department last year was exactly what we find it in the vote this year. The reason why it was struck down to $2,000,000 in the 1920-21 Estimates was that a considerable portion of the year had elapsed before any expense was incurred.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I suppose we must feel satisfied with this answer on the interim Bill. We will discuss it more fully when we take up the item on the Estimates.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would ask the minister for an answer to my question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am getting up to answer my hon. friend. The whole question of income tax as between different countries is very difficult to determine. Of course, on the one hand it would seem that the country from which the income was earned, rather than the country in which it was spent, ought to be looked upon as the country to get the tax; but, on the other hand, if that principle were adopted great difficulties would ensue. For example, in England, where many people get all their income from outside investments, there would be a very great shortening of taxes collectible there, which is something the British Government could not entertain. So far as we are concerned in Canada, we have been doing our best to get a satisfactory solution of that difficulty. We may be able to get it, but I have some doubts. We are always willing to enter into any reciprocal arrangement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-$1,562,500 granted for 1921-22.
['I am getting up to answer my hon. friend. The whole question of income tax as between different countries is very difficult to determine. Of course, on the one hand it would seem that the country from which the income was earned, rather than the country in which it was spent, ought to be looked upon as the country to get the tax; but, on the other hand, if that principle were adopted great difficulties would ensue. For example, in England, where many people get all their income from outside investments, there would be a very great shortening of taxes collectible there, which is something the British Government could not entertain. So far as we are concerned in Canada, we have been doing our best to get a satisfactory solution of that difficulty. We may be able to get it, but I have some doubts. We are always willing to enter into any reciprocal arrangement.']
Mr. LANCTOT:: Mr. Chairman, before this clause is carried I should like to know how this bonus is paid to the civil em-



ployees. I understand that there is a schedule in which employees are grouped according to salaries, the first group comprising those earning $1,000, the second, $2,000, the third $4,000, and so on. Are those receiving $5,000, $6,000 or even $10,000 receiving a bonus? I may say at once that I am altogether opposed to the payment of any bonus, because the cost of living has diminished very greatly since last year, and the bonus has been granted for the last three years on account of the high cost of living. It seems to me that if any bonus is granted it should be to the married men, and I would limit the bonus to those receiving not more than $2,000. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, hundreds of thousands of our working men are idle to-day, and during the winter the federal, provincial and municipal authorities had to grant assistance to relieve their distress. In view of that, why should we continue paying a bonus to our civil servants? I wonder if the directors of a company that had lost, say, half a million dollars on the year's business would give a bonus to their employees. I do not think they would. This Government, I understand, has not done a very good business for the people for the year ended March 31, last. If so, I think the time has arrived when we should cut down expenses. This amount of $9,375,000 is pretty nearly one-fourth of the expenditure of the whole country in 1896. I remember, when I was a young man attending Ottawa University, I used to visit this House Thursday evenings, and on many occasions I heard lengthy discussions over item of $200 or $300. But to-day we think nothing of a million-dollar item. We must go back to the frame of mind of the old days and be more careful over our national expenditure.
It has been declared in the House on many occasions that the Civil Service in Ottawa is overmanned, and I know it to be the case. That being so, I cannot understand why the Civil Service Commission practically all the year round is sending out long lists of positions calling for new employees. I would suggest to the Government that the minister should know six months or a year in advance if more employees are called for in any department and he should satisfy himself that the additional employees are really needed. If an employee of the Public Works Department is not suitable for work in any other department, why should not the Government, which is paying that employee without getting any service in return, send him

to school in order that he may be prepared for service in another department? Why not do that instead of calling from time to time for new employees? I have talked the matter over with employees here in Ottawa, and they have felt compelled to accept my views. Many of them told me that they did not work more than five hours a day. I am sure that the civil employees do not work more than four or five hours a day, but they want big pay. If the service were not overmanned the employees would be better paid and the country would get better service. But where there are three or four employees to do one particular job, they depend upon each other to do it; they are all agreed that they should not work much, so the day passes without the work being done. The people are tired of paying taxes to maintain this army of civil employees. I wonder if a business man or a farmer could go on for ten or twenty years with his men working only four or five hours a day. No one could run his business under those conditions. The same is true of the manufacturer, of the merchant, of everybody engaged in any line of business. I am a man of economy, and I want to practise economy. I met on St. James street, in Montreal, some two or three weeks ago( a government employee who is living in that city and who was at one time a member of this House. The Prime Minister has just announced that the bonus would be reduced by 25 per cent, and he asked me if members of the House would be prepared to have their salaries reduced accordingly. My reply was that I received no benefit from the increase in the sessional [DOT] indemnity because I gave it to my people. So I said to him: You may go back to Ottawa once more and tell your old friends what to do; it is not up to me to do it. So I hope the Minister of Finance will give me the details I have asked for, that is, what men of different salaries receive from the bonus-those receiving $1,000,	$2,000,
$3,000 and $4,000. I notice in the third volume of the Auditor General's Report that in some cases caretakers of public buildings whose salary is $300 a year have been receiving a bonus of $420. In some cases the salary is less but the bonus is always $420. When the bonus is abolished for good,
I wonder how you will work it out that these men will be willing to remain in the service after receiving a bonus larger than their salary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I shall have great pleasure in getting the details for my hon. friend and in giving them to him when the main vote is under consideration.

The bonus is being administered by the Civil Service Commission, very largely on the lines jndicated by the hon. member as correct lines. The amount of bonus paid is in inverse ratio to the salary; the smaller the salary the larger the bonus. There is also a differentiation between married and unmarried persons, in favour of those who are married. As the salary increases the bonus decreases, so that, as I recollect it, when the salary is over $3,000 the bonus ceases. But I shall have pleasure in giving my hon. friend the exact details at the proper time.


Roch Lanctôt: I understand, then, that in the case of a married man receiving $1,200 and a single man receiving the same salary, the single man will not get the same bonus as the married man?


Mr. McCOIG:: The minister has just
made a statement which indicates the cause of much dissatisfaction and unrest among the mail carriers. He has said that the smaller the salary, the larger is the bonus. Well, that is the trouble with the bonus system and that is why the letter carriers throughout Canada are asking the Government to give them a stipulated salary so that they may be able to know what they are going to receive from time to time for the services they render. Necessarily, when a twenty-five per cent reduction is made in the bonus the man receiving the humble salary gets the small end of the deal. The system should be mapped out in such a way as to provide for the services rendered by the letter carriers of this country. During the war these men rendered splendid service without complaint. A large number of these positions have since the war been filled by returned soldiers, and it does seem unfair that the man with the smaller salary should have the biggest slice taken off his bonus. On page 80 of the Estimates I find that of the eighty odd employees of the Department of the Interior who are receiving salaries ranging from $2,500 to $4,000, sixty are getting substantial increases which will have the effect of compensating for the reduction of bonus. On page 81 we find that the men who are rendering real service in the humble capacities and receiving salaries of $1,000 and $1,020, are getting no increases. We should try to deal fairly with the men in humble circumstances, men who have families to maintain, and to educate, homes to buy and all the necessities of their families to provide for. We have in the city of Chatham, in my riding, a class of men on
the letter carriers' staff who are equal to any class of men in the Government service either in Ottawa or in any other part of the country. These men have already started out to provide themselves with homes, figuring that they would receive this bonus, and at this particular time, when they are on the point of having to meet their obligations, they are told that a cut of 25 per cent is to be made in the bonus, and they have no other way of providing money with which to meet their obligations. I am particularly anxious to impress up the minister the necessity of giving men in the humbler positions in the employ of the Government a stipulated salary, so that they may know what they have to depend upon receiving and that they may not have to depend upon a bonus such as they have at present.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (York):: I would
like to associate myself right now with my hon. friend (Mr. McCoig). To my mind the principle of bonus is absolutely wrong. It is not fair, just, nor right to expect any married man or any man who is conducting a business, to carry along on a system of bonus. There is nothing sane or safe or solid about such a system. Such a man does not know at what minute the bonus is going to be cut off. During war time it was quite justifiable that a bonus should be given; I am not raising any question about that part of it; I am speaking of the principle of bonus. Supposing a married man is getting a salary, we will say of $2,000 a year, and he is given a bonus of $300. He starts on this principle of living and he adds the $300 to his salary. The $300 is cut off automatically at some time, and he does not know when it is going to be cut off. Where does he land? I agree entirely with my hon. friend that the principle of bonus is absolutely wrong. If a man can earn $1,000 give him $1,000; if a man can earn $1,500, give him $1,500; but do not give it to him by way of a bonus.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it
the intention of the Government to reduce the bonus from time to time until it disappears?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
best way of answering the question is this. The reason why the bonus was put on was a reason which appealed to Parliament just as much as it appealed to most business houses during the period of the war. We had a high advancing cost of living, and it was felt that it was not on a permanent basis and that, therefore, instead of salaries

being increased beyond what was looked upon as a real economic value of the service, the proper thing to do was to give a bonus for the purpose of assisting employees over a period of high living costs. We are told that the cost of living is coming down, and the figures which have been submitted to the Government indicate that to be the fact, and they further indicate it to be the fact that having regard to the essential purpose for which the bonus was given, namely an increasing cost in living, it would be proper and just to make this year a reduction of 25 per cent in the amount of the bonus. That principle is the one which we have adopted, and I have! no doubt that principle is the one that ought to be adopted.


John Howard Sinclair: The
minister has not altogether answered my question. I want to know what the policy of the Government is regarding this bonus. Is it the policy of the Government to go on reducing the bonus, or to leave it as it is as long as they can afford to pay it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Our policy- is to reduce it as the necessity for it disappears. It may be that the cost of living will be up next year, or it may be very much down. We all hope that it will be down. But the concrete action which ought to be taken is one which should be taken in view of the circumstances which may then develop. In addition to that, the Civil Service Commission, I think, are paying attention to points raised by hon. gentlemen who have previously spoken, and they are re-classifying and, in some instances, raising salaries, having regard to the value of the services given. Undoubtedly a bonus system ought to be a temporary system, and undoubtedly in time it ought to disappear, because, when a permanent higher standard of living is adopted, the value of the services having increased in regard to the economic situation, the bonus ought to disappear and its place be taken by a permanent salary.


Mr. EULER:: 
John Flaws Reid: I approve of the bonus system. It has been followed very largely by commercial firms, first, on account of the very great increase in the cost of living, and second, because it enabled

that increased cost to be met without upsetting the wage schedule. I suppose another reason for granting a bonus instead of an increase in salary was that it was easier to withdraw the bonus than to reduce the wages.
I think the Government should be very careful that they do not reduce the bonus too soon. I do not know that the cost of living has dropped so very much. I have made inquiry in the city of Ottawa and I find that the cost of bread rose during the war six cents above the normal price. That was the top price. And to-day bread is only one cent below that peak figure, in spite of the fact that wheat has dropped from $3.25 to $1.65. I am informed that about thirty per cent of our civil servants receive an annual salary of about $800. If that is the fact, certainly they are not overpaid, and the wonder to me is how they can live on $800 a year. I would again ask the Government to be very careful not to reduce the bonus too soon. I think the Government is to be congratulated for having followed the bonus system, which has been adopted by nearly all commercial houses.


Mr. KENNEDY (Essex) :: I quite agree with what has been said as to the bonus system. I do not believe it should have been adopted, but inasmuch as' the Government has adopted that system, I do not think the time is opportune for making a cut in the bonus. We all realize from reading the press and the government reports that there has been some drop in the cost of living, but to the ordinary man receiving a salary of from $1,500 to $2,000 a year, that drop in prices is not appreciable. Take the case of the postmen in the city of Windsor, for instance, and other civil servants. They cannot possibly get a decent house at less than $35 or $40 a month rent. Then, last year they were paying from $20 to $25 a ton for coal. That means they would be spending $30 a month on coal, burning a ton and a half a month. So on those two items alone $70 is gone without a dollar for clothing, without a dollar for food, without a dollar for the doctor and many other expenses that a married man with a family necessarily has to meet. I repeat, I am opposed to the bonus system, but I believe the time is not opportune for making a cut in the bonus. I believe that the men should pe paid a decent living salary, which they could be assured of for some time to come, and make their arrangements accordingly. In that way only will you get good service. Naturally the men are unsettled to-day, when they do not know from day to day just what they are going to receive. It is not reasonable treatment for the Government to mete out to its employees. It is not the treatment that would be accorded by private concerns, and we should at least put ourselves in that class with respect to our employees. Let us give the men a decent living wage so that they can bring up their families properly.


Mr. PARDEE:: I do not want to prolong the discussion. I am against the bonus system, but I think there should be no cut at the present time. I believe that the men should be paid a living wage, so that they would know from month to month and year to year what they were going to receive and be able to make their arrangements accordingly. I am decidedly against cutting the bonus at the present time. Although the price of some things may have come down to some extent, the cost of living is not appreciably less than it was a considerable time ago. Many of our postmen with a large family get just enough to keep body and soul together when you include the bonus, and to make a cut in the bonus now certainly seems to me to be inopportune. In my own town I know that some of them have had to do outside work after hours in order to make both ends meet. The salaries they receive to-day, I understand, are a minimum of $900 and a maximum of $1,200. I think if we put ourselves in their shoes for a moment we should appreciate how difficult it is for a man with a family of four or five children to bring them up as they should be brought up on such a small salary. The salary is small enough as it is, and to make a cut in the bonus is only making matters so much worse. My idea is that there ought to be a living wage paid. I think you would then get more loyal service. The civil servants would endeavour to give their best in the positions they hold.


Mr. GORDON:: I have been particularly impressed with what hon. gentlemen have said regarding the case of the postmen. That is one service which it seems to me requires the particular attention of the Government. Most of these men have seen service overesas, where they received very small remuneration, and in their present position in the service to-day they are receiving very meagre pay. Tile work is very arduous; the men have to travel back and forth on the pavements, and in consequence of their employment in all kinds

of weather they are liable to rheumatism and other ailments. You might say they are almost continuously employed night and day. The cost of living in some of the smaller cities has not appreciably decreased. Before the bonus was granted, it certainly had increased, and I do not believe it has decreased sufficiently to warrant the minister in cutting the bonus to the extent of 25 per cent. Coal and rent are two main items in the cost of living, and these are as high, if not higher, than they ever were. I would urge the Government to continue the bonus without any cut for this year at least, and then perhaps next year there would not be so much ground for complaint at a cut, providing the cost of living had decreased as we anticipate it will. This is one service which I think should receive the sympathetic support of the Government. These men are working in all kinds of weather, and they, are meagrely paid. I think the Government should see that they receive such remuneration as will enable them to maintain at least their present standard of living.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does this bonus apply to the superannuated officers of the Government?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the intention of the Government to supplement the retiring allowance of those who have been superannuated? I know there has been a petition circulated to that effect.


Arthur Meighen: There was a question put to the Government on the matter, and it was answered to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend remember the answer?


Arthur Meighen: It was that the bonus does not apply to them, and that the Government under the Act of 1920 provided certain pensions for pensioners in England-that was part of the question-but had not decided to have that apply in Canada.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: lam heartily in accord with what has been said in favour of the postmen. I am certainly not in favour of a cut in the bonus at the present time. These men are performing one of the most important services, and their salaries are very small. The minimum is $900 and the maximum $1,200, I understand. While there might have been some slight decrease in the cost of living, the main items, fuel and rent, have certainly not gone down,
[Mr. Gordon.1
and I therefore think it would be inopportune to make a cut in the bonus at the present time. I concur in what has been said opposing its reduction.


Mr. TURGEON:: On principle, I oppose the payment of a bonus, because I consider that civil servants should be given salaries sufficient to enable them to live in reasonable comfort; and, in the meantime, I understand that the Civil Service Commission is trying to bring about an equitable adjustment of this matter. As things are, however, I do not think that the bonus at present paid civil servants throughout the country should be reduced. While it is true that the prices of one or two commodities have gone down a little, no one can deny that on the whole the cost of living is pretty much on the same level as it was last year, and certainly rents in the cities are, if anything, on the increase. Under the circumstance, therefore, a reduction in the bonus at this time would be unjust. I would suggest to the Government, that, at any rate, no civil servant receiving less than $2,000 should suffer a reduction in the bonus paid him last year. We all know that to-day a family man in receipt of even $2,000 finds it extremely difficult to make ends meet, and those receiving less than this sum cannot afford to have the little bonus paid them reduced, as can men receiving $4,000 and $5,000 a year.


Mr. FORTIER:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I only wish to urge the Government, in a very few words, not to reduce the bonus which the civil servants have been granted for a couple of years, because, to my mind, we do not live at a time when such a question should be considered. As far as I am concerned, I sincerely sympathize with all the civil employees, and particularly so with those of the capital or of the city where I have the honour to reside. Having increased the judges' salaries as well as our own parliamentary indemnity, we should not think of reducing the salaries of those poor employees. The salary received by and the bonus granted to each of them are hardly sufficient to ensure a decent living, and I know a good many whose home has been visited by want. No, the cost of living has not decreased, I should rather think it has increased. I read with pleasure a few days ago in the press that one of the leaders of industry in our district, surnamed the Lumber King, had decided to increase the salaries of his men on account of the high cost of living. It seems

to me that by cutting down the bonus to the extent of 25 per cent, the Government is doing something that is not at all justified and I dare hope they will reverse their decision.
During the discussions that took place this week I had occasion to express my opinion on the question. I think the Government ought to pay the entire bonus and even increase it in some cases. I concur in the opinion of the hon. members who have said that it was a vicious principle to grant a bonus to public employees and that they should rather increase their salaries. I have already stated that we were not justified at this time in reducing that bonus after having paid it for one, two or three years, and that justice demands to-day that the entire salary and bonus be paid. Many employees have been in the public service for a number of years and they are in hopes of receiving a sufficient salary to provide for their families. I am pleased now to act as their interpreter and champion. I am in no way interested and I must say that during my public career such advice as I gave to those wishing to enter the public service has always been of such a nature as to dissuade them. I told them: "My good friends, do not enter public service."
In concluding, I beg to say once more that public servants have the right to expect a fair and just treatment. It is not' given to every one of them to have interpreters within the hearing of the Government; a great number of them are mechanics and their surroundings are perhaps unknown to our ministers; these people are not permitted to knock at the doors of those gentlemen in order to make known their circumstances and to voice their just claims. I am pleased, as I have said, to represent them and say to the Government on their behalf that the bonus should be increased instead of being reduced. I think that this is a step the Government ought to take.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Did the employees of the Quebec arsenal receive their bonus last year and this year, as far as it has gone? Will the Minister of Militia give me an answer?


Georges Henri Boivin: The question is not strictly relevant to the clause under consideration, but the hon. member may ask it by unanimous consent.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member asked me the question a moment ago and I said I would get the information and give it to him. I have not yet got it, but -when it is available he shall have it.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I would ask the Prime Minister to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon), that salaries not exceeding $2,000 shall be exempt from the reduction this year. This suggestion deserves the best consideration of the Government. No man in this country to-day who has a family can decently exist on less than this amount, and as members of Parliament, I do not think we should go on record as asking people to live on less than a living wage, and I think that taking off twenty-five per cent from the bonus in the case of men who are receiving less than $2,000 a year -well I would not like to characterize it too strongly, but it would seem to be nothing short of an outrage.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's
language is pretty strong.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I do not think it is too strong.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. member at all, nor indeed of any hon. member, in his remarks as to this bonus question. But it must be recalled that the duty of the Government is one thing, and the privilege of the Opposition is another. It is one of the great privileges of members of an Opposition to complain that each and every vote is not large enough but that the total is too large. The problem that confronts the Government is to keep the total down and to get the items increased. We had no idea in the world that a reduction of the bonus would be popular anywhere. Such a thing is inconceivable, it is undoubtedly unpopular in the Service, and undoubtedly unpopular among the friends of the Service. But the question the Government had to consider was: What is the right thing to do?-and we had to do the right thing, no matter what it entailed. First of all let me point this out. The official figures show that there has been a reduction-I think approximately of fifteen per cent-in the cost of living. I know that is disputed. I know you could dispute over it for hours and not get very far, but the official figures show it. We do not reduce the salary of anybody twenty-five per cent, but only reduce the bonus that he gets by that amount, and that I understand averages only about five per cent of the salary received. Consequently there is only a five per cent reduction of salary as against a fifteen per cent reduction in the cost of living. Now it is only fair to say that at the time the bonus was fixed the cost of living had

not got to the maximum-it reached it somewhat later-and that this fifteen per cent reduction or something like that has occurred since the maximum in the cost of living was reached, not since the time the bonus was fixed. But as against that there is this consideration, that the scale of salaries which has been adopted by the commission was arrived at in this way, and it is of the utmost importance that it be understood: There was a gradual increase in the cost of living for some years before the war. A certain number of years were taken and the line indicating the cost of living runs through that number of years. In determining the figures for the new classification, or the new scale of salaries, the Civil Service Commission simply projected that ascending line through the years of the war thereby giving increases very substantially, in addition to the bonus, or cost of living increase, which was granted. Therefore on the completion of the reclassification very decided advances took place as well as advances not in effect previously
that is to say advances that correspond to increases in the cost of living while now the cost of living is actually declining. All that had to be taken into account. It was taken into account, and the Government really thought that it was acting on the side of fairness, if not a little better, in its decision on this question, having regard to the imperative need of economy in the public service.
Now the fact must also be taken into account that the cost of the public service
and if that question is raised I earnestly hope my words will not raise it because we are anxious to get on-the cost of the public service, by reason of the increase in classification and of the bonus, and eliminating entirely increases in the service- and indeed there have been very great increases has gone up at least between one hundred and two hundred per cent. Taking account of absolutely necessary increases since 1914 I think the figures have risen I speak now from memory-from about $28,000,000 to over $65,000,000. The diminution that is provided for here takes off but $3,200,000 for one year, providing that the diminution applies throughout the year and to it alone.
This also must be taken into account -the condition of labour generally throughout the country. It is unfair, wholly unfair, on the part of the Government to pay any class of labour substantially above what that class can obtain elsewhere, because if that is done the outside man en-
gaged at lower pay in a similar class of work is forced to contribute to the man that happens to be in the Government service something that the former needs more than the latter-the outside man is taxed to pay the extra amount the man in the Government service receives, which undoubtedly is not fair. Consequently we felt that because of the conditions obtaining now in the industrial world generally, as well as for the other reasons I have mentioned, this very small reduction should be made in the bonus. Now, if every man who receives less than $2,000 should still receive what he got before, is not the very injustice I have represented going to be ' perpetuated? Undoubtedly it is. It is true, it is hard getting along when the salary is under that sum, but it is also true that thousands and tens of thousands-yes, hundreds of thousands, if not millions-do get along in this country on a salary under that amount, and at the same time have to contribute to the payment of these very people whose cause is advocated here. I could name to my hon. friend from North Essex many and many a family, not in receipt of any revenue from the Government of Canada, who are getting on with a good deal less than that amount at this time, and when the hon. member makes his plea let him remember he is asking that these people outside, who are already receiving less salary and perhaps doing more work, to contribute to make still greater the advantage of those who happen to be in the public service. It must also be recalled that in the public service the hours are pretty good, and while there are many excellent public servants-and many, I have not the least doubt, who are doing more than they are getting paid for-what is inevitable in all public services results: the need of uniformity is such that you are bound to be overpaying many, and at the same time underpaying a few; that is an incident of public service, no matter where it is. So that, having in view the conditions of work, the hours of labour, the certainty of employment, having in view corresponding conditions in the industrial world generally, I do not think there is cause of complaint as to any part of the public service, that is to say, nothing in the way of general cause for complaint.


Roch Lanctôt: I congratulate the
Prime Minister upon the stand he has taken. Let me state further many instances in the city of Ottawa three or four members of the same family are working in

the Civil Service. I do not see why four persons of the same family in one house should receive four bonuses. When I first addressed the committee this afternoon I was speaking about the Inside Service here. The Outside Service I know is not so well paid and includes the men engaged in the delivery of the mails all over the country. But in Ottawa every one in the Inside Service is well paid, and during my seventeen years as a member of the House I have been asked by hundreds of my people to try to get them a job in the service here. Ten years ago any of them would only be too willing to receive a salary of $100 per month for a short working day of five hours,, for they could not get anything like that remuneration down in my country, or in Montreal or anywhere else. I say again that the workingmen who are idle to-day are not ready to pay bonuses to those who have a well-paid job the year round.


Mr. PROULX:: I approve of what the
right hon. Prime Minister said, and I should like him to even up things. There is a class of men in the Outside Service who are certainly underpaid; I refer to the rural mail carriers throughout the country. We have in the Inside Service some employees who get large salaries and a bonus in addition. I would advise him to cut the bonus of those employees who are getting over $2,000 by fifty per cent, and apply the saving towards a bonus to the rural mail carriers.


William Cameron Edwards: Were not the bonuses
graded according to salary?-that is to say, higher bonuses were given to those receiving the smaller salaries? If that is right, then my hon, friend would not be logical in making the cut apply only to those getting over $2,000.	.


Edmond Proulx: I think my hon. friend
from Frontenac is wrong. I do not think this bonus applies to the rural mail carriers.


Arthur Meighen: He is right; the larger bonus is given to the lower-paid employees.


Edmond Proulx: But are the rural mail
carriers included among those who get bonuses?


Arthur Meighen: Not those who have
contracts. They are not in the service at all, they are contractors.


Edmond Proulx: But they are underpaid. They take the contracts at a low figure because the department will not allow more than a certain figure per mile.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chairman certainly cannot allow a discussion respecting the contracts of rural mail carriers. It would be absolutely out of order on this item and might be prolonged indefinitely.


Edmond Proulx: I would advise the Prime Minister to leave the bonus cut for those receiving a salary of less than $2,000 at 25 pfer cent and reduce the bonus of those receiving over $2,000 by fifty per cent. Then we will have some money to provide for the rural mail carriers.


Archibald Blake McCoig: In vie\y of the representations that have been made by various hon. members I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider abolishing the bonus system and putting the employees on a straight salary basis.


Arthur Meighen: That undoubtedly is
the intention. The bonus system was instituted to take care of what it was hoped would be a temporary condition. That condition is now in process of disappearance, and as it disappears it is the intention that the bonus that accompanied it shall likewise disappear, and that the Civil Service shall return to a straight salary basis.


William Daum Euler: Is this cut of 25 per cent
the forerunner of similar cuts at stated intervals?


Arthur Meighen: That will all depend
upon the disappearance of the temporary cause, that is, the abnormal cost of living due to the war. As rapidly as that recedes it is intended that the bonus shall be reduced. Consequently we cannot say what the next reduction will be or when it will be made. I suppose in the event of another war we might have to increase instead of decrease the bonus.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-account to be rendered in detail.
['That will all depend\nupon the disappearance of the temporary cause, that is, the abnormal cost of living due to the war. As rapidly as that recedes it is intended that the bonus shall be reduced. Consequently we cannot say what the next reduction will be or when it will be made. I suppose in the event of another war we might have to increase instead of decrease the bonus.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the
moneys appropriated under this Act be surrounded by the same conditions as surround interim Supply when reached by agreement; in other words, will the moneys be used only for what is absolutely necessary until all the Supply is voted?


Arthur Meighen: The ordinary conditions of the vote on interim Supply will be observed.


Mr. ROBB:: I would direct the attention
of the Prime Minister to the provision that a detailed statement shall be submitted to

the House within fifteen days of the next session. Having in mind our experience this year, of delay in bringing down the Auditor General's report and consequently the impossibility of the Public Accounts Committee meeting, will the Prime Minister see that the Finance Department gives closer attention to its duties next year so that the Auditor General's report will be presented according to statute?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I will have to give a negative answer to my hon. friend, for two reasons: First, because there was nothing unusual," unless it was unusual speed, in the production of the Auditor General's Report this year; and second, because I do not think it is possible for the Finance Department to urge these things along faster than they do. I have had occasion to examine the matter, and I assure my hon. friend that no stone is left unturned in trying to observe the law. I sometimes think it is unwise to have the law remain as it is in that regard, because it becomes impossible to observe it, and it has been traditionally so. But X will give my hon. friend an undertaking that the utmost that can be done will be done to have the law observed just as closely as is practicable.


Frank S. Cahill: In view of the diminishing strength of the Government, I think that the question should hardly be pressed upon my right hon. friend as to what will be done next year. At that time he is scarcely likely to be performing his present duties.'


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into Committee of the Whole on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
That it is expedient to provide that the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board hy the Governor in Council under the provisions of the Order in Council of the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen (F.C. 1589), the appointments made thereunder and the powers, duties and rights of the said Board and of the Executive Committee, Chairman and members of the said Board as set forth in the said Order in Council and in the Orders in Council of the seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and nienteen (P.C. 1659), the twenty-ninth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen (P.C.	1817), the
eighteenth day of October, one thousand nine 
hundred and nineteen (P.C. 2148), the third day of December, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen (P.C. 2430), the ninth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen (P.C. 2462), and in two Orders in Council of the eighteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen (P.C. 1741 and P.C. 1762), and in any other Orders in Council passed with reference to the said Board, and the rules, regulations and orders made by the said Board, be ratified and confirmed as on and from the respective dates of the said Orders in Councils, rules and regulations; and that the powers, duties and rights of the said Board, the Executive Committee, the Chairman and members, be continued in full force and effect so far as it may be necessary and convenient for winding up and concluding the unsettled business of the Wheat Board, or any business arising therefrom ; and that the Governor in Council shall have power during the continuance of such business to fill any vacancy in the chairmanship or the membership thereof and to make any regulations he may deem necessary or convenient for conducting, managing and winding up the said business of the said Board.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
James Alexander Robb: The press would indicate
that the minister is about to appoint another commission to investigate the grain trade in general. Will that commission have authority to dip into all the business of previous grain commissions which the minister had had under his department?


George Green Foster: I do not think they would have any power to go into this, which was an independent commission and has carried out its work. It is not intended to give the new commission such powers as my hon. friend speaks of.


James Alexander Robb: Is it not the case that all
the irregularities complained of, which are the grounds upon which the Government is appointing this further commission, occurred within the last year? For it is to be remembered that these grain commissions handled the grain business in Canada for two or three years.


George Green Foster: Oh, no, the
Canadian Wheat Board simply had the duty of buying in the first place and disposing afterwards of the grain, during the time that they had power. But the work of the commission which is to be appointed will be a far wider work, involving questions connected with the whole machinery of delivery, storage, handling, transport and marketing of the grain in general.


James Alexander Robb: How far back will it go?


George Green Foster: I do not know.
I suppose they will not be limited in that respect; they will use their judgment as to how far back it is necessary to extend their examinations.


John Flaws Reid: I understand that the Canadian Wheat Board are asking for winding-up powers?


George Green Foster: Yes.


John Flaws Reid: What amount of money, if any, is standing to the credit of the Canadian Wheat Board, and has the minister come to any conclusion as to what shall be done with it?


George Green Foster: The object of
the Canadian Wheat Board, as my hon. friend knows, was, after marketing the grain, to get the price received therefor, less expenses, into the hands of the original producers of the grain. The amounts have all been distributed up to an average of $2.63 per bushel. I do not know what amount is on hand; it will depend on its size whether it is worth while attempting to distribute it among the original producers. If this is not done, some other provision will have to be made for it; probably it will go into the consolidated revenue fund. The amount may be so small that the cost of distributing it would be almost as great as the amount itself. We cannot decide that question until we ascertain in the final adjustment of the business just what surplus is on hand.


John Flaws Reid: I understand
that the amount will likely be so small that it would not pay to give to each individual producer the small balance coming to him. But I am informed that in the aggregate it will be a considerable sum. I would like to make this suggestion to the minister. A blight known as the rust has been having an adverse effect upon the production of wheat in Western Canada. Would he consider the advisability of setting aside this sum-perhaps it would need to be supplemented-for the purposes of a thorough investigation with a view to finding means of scientifically combatting this rust pest, which is very seriously affecting the production of wheat?


George Green Foster: I should suppose that is being done to a certain extent by the Department of Agriculture. If it is not being done by them to an extent commensurate with the menace of the pest, I suppose it would be the duty of the agriculture departments here and in the provinces to prosecute the work still further. To the extent that this work is carried on by the Department of Agriculture here the money must be provided out of the consolidated revenue fund, so that if the Canadian Wheat Board surplus goes into that fund it
would in the end be paid out through the appropriate department for the purpose suggested by my hon. friend. However, his suggestion is well worthy of being taken into account.


John Flaws Reid: I urge the minister to give the committee a definite promise that he will see to it that a special effort will be made to combat this rust pest and that it will not be left entirely to the Department of Agriculture.


George Green Foster: I could not
give my hon. friend any such assurance as that, but I will collogue with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture in reference to the suggestion.


John Flaws Reid: I promise the
minister that I will remind him of this later.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 75, concerning the Canadian Wheat Board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN moved the second reading of Bill No. 60, to amend the Judges' Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) does not appear to be present, and I think some other hon. members on this side would like to be present when this Bill comes up. Why not leave it over until after recess?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Justice will not be present after recess and it is important that this Bill have attention now. I could give the reasons, but that is not necessary. The only consideration was this, whether the $5,000 that had been received as administrator was taxable, and we are prepared to take that up now. I do not see any reason for delay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-section 11 of chapter 56 of statutes of 1920 not to apply to present Chief Justice, as the emoluments of his office were not increased by that Act.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the clause that will have to be amended. When the Bill was before the House on a former occasion, exception was taken to the clause as it now stands, because it would exempt from taxation, not only the $10,000 which the Chief Justice has heretofore received, but also his $5,000 allowance as administrator. An amendment has therefore been prepared by the Minister of Justice which ~ he has placed in my hands as he is not able to be present this evening. This amendment is to overcome that difficulty by providing that the $5,000 which the Chief Justice receives as administrator shall be taxable, but that the $10,000 shall always continue to be exempt. The amendment which I move reads:
That the words "so much of the annual salary of" be inserted in line 6 after the words applied to," and that the words "as amounts to $10,000" he inserted in line 8 after the words "of Canada."
That will make the section read:
1. Section 11 of chapter 56 of the Statues of 1920, entitled an Act to amend the Judges' Act, shall not apply nor be deemed to have applied to so much of the annual salary of the Right Honourable Sir Louis H. Davies. K.C.M.G., the present Chief Justice of Canada as amounts to $10,000.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Hugh Guthrie: That is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Had Sir
Louis Davies any understanding with the Government, as to what part of his salary if any, would be exempt?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand there was no arrangement. I do not think the matter was even discussed.


James Alexander Robb: Does a similar exemption apply to all the judges in Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: They are exempt, bur not in respect of increases which were made last session. When their salaries were increased, the increases were made subject: to taxation.


James Alexander Robb: The original salaries were exempt?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Were they exempted at the time the judges were appointed, or were they exempted by the Act introduced by the Minister of Finance when income taxes were introduced into Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: I think they have always been exempted under the clauses of the Judges' Act. ,


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-when judges not to be paid travelling expenses.
Ernest Lapointe: What is the necessity for this clause?


Hugh Guthrie: I think only in Ontario is any local residence required of judges. By the statutes of Ontario a judge of the High Court must reside at the city of Toronto. As a matter of practice, a judge ought to reside at the chief town of the province where the court is held; but in many provinces we find that a judge resides, hot where the chief courts are held and where he performs his daily functions, but at a point more or less remote. And the practice in the past has been that a judge will charge his travelling expenses in going daily to the place where he holds his court. The object of the present clause is that a judge shall not be entitled to charge travelling expenses in going to the place where he holds court. If he desires to live outside of the capital city of the province or the place where the courts are usually held, he shall travel at his own expense. In British Columbia he must reside at one of two places, either at Vancouver or at Victoria. In the other provinces I think there is a single place designated as the chief place for holding of these courts, and in going to and returning from that place, a judge shall not charge travelling expenses.


John Flaws Reid: As regards Saskatchewan, if a judge chooses to reside in Saskatoon, he gets no travelling allowance for going down to the city of Regina where courts have to be held?


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's) :: Am I to understand that as regards Prince Edward Island, a judge will not receive travelling expenses when he goes to hold court in Summerside and Georgetown, outside of the city of Charlottetown?


Hugh Guthrie: That is a circuit court; that is a different thing.


John Howard Sinclair: The Supreme Court?


Hugh Guthrie: A judge of the Supreme Court going on circuit gets his travelling expenses. It is only for courts or chambers

held in Charlottetown that he shall not charge travelling expenses. He should live there.


Mr. COPP:: As regards New Brunswick, under our Act judges have to hold chambers on certain days of the week at Fredericton, St. John and Moncton. The judge has to go from St. John to Moncton. Under the Act will he not be allowed travelling expenses?


Hugh Guthrie: Tlje section is very
plain on that:
w
in the province of New Brunswick no judge of the Supreme Court shall receive any travelling allowance for courts or chambers held at either one of the cities of Fredericton or St. John unless he resides at the other of the said cities or in the immediate vicinity thereof.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would suggest that Moncton should be added there, because the judges are obliged to hold chambers in the city of Moncton just as well as in Fredericton and St. John. If a judge lives at Fredericton and has to hold chambers at St. John, he is allowed travelling expenses, or if he lives at St. John and has to hold chambers at Fredericton, he is allowed travelling expenses. I think if a judge in St. John or Fredericton has to hold chambers in Moncton, he also should be allowed travelling expenses.


Hugh Guthrie: Is Moncton established as a place to hold chambers by some provincial law?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I think it should be added.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know they hold chambers there, hut before I say it is established by law, I should like to look up the Act. I can let the minister know definitely at eight o'clock when we resume.
At Six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering Bill No. 60 to amend the Judges' Act. Clauses 1 and 2 had been adopted; clause 3 was under consideration. Shall clause 3 carry?


Arthur Bliss Copp: During the dinner hour I had an opportunity of conferring with the minister (Mr. Guthrie), and apparently we
do not understand each other in regard to the objection I raised to this section. The point is that one of the judges of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick resides at Moncton, one of the larger cities of the province, where the legal business is as great as that at either St. John or Fredericton, if not greater; but when this judge holds court at St. John or Fredericton, he receives no travelling expenses, although other judges, travelling between these two points, are indemnified. Judge Chandler chose to reside at Moncton because it is within easy access to the whole north shore of the province, being in proximity to Res-tigouche, Gloucester, Northumberland, and Westmoreland. It does not seem fair to me that he should be compelled to change his residence from Moncton to St. John or Fredericton, or in the alternative be penalized by having to pay his own travelling expenses when doing chamber work in either of these two places. A resident judge of Fredericton or St. John, when going to Moncton, is paid travelling expenses. If this is a policy of the Government, I can, of course, do nothing, but I submit to my hon. friend that it is unjust to the judge who resides in Moncton.


Hugh Guthrie: During adjournment I had the benefit of a brief interview with my hon. friend in regard to this clause. I should not like to create an exception with reference to New Brunswick or the city of Moncton. The object of the Bill is not to penalize or inconvenience any judge.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, that is the effect.


Hugh Guthrie: Nor is that the effect, in my humble judgment. We recognize that in certain provinces the capital is not the metropolitan centre nor the place where the chief business is done, and in some provinces we have therefore allowed two places to be named as the principal centres for the holding of courts. In British Columbia, Victoria happens to be the capital, but Vancouver is the larger centre, and there is more court business actually transacted there than in Victoria. Consequently, we have named two places in that province as central locations of court. In Alberta it happens that Calgary is larger than Edmonton, and in that province, again, we have allowed two places. In Saskatchewan there is only one; in Manitoba only one; in Ontario only one; in Quebec only one; in Nova Scotia only one and in Prince Edward Island only one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are you referring to the Appellate Court?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not referring to the circuit courts held by the judges who carry on ordinary assize business. Those judges will be paid in the future as in the past. The object is to reduce the amount the Government has to pay for travelling expenses. When a judge accepts the appointment he knows the conditions and should live in proximity to the court. In Ontario, he must by statute live in Toronto. Under this amendment we have given a good deal of liberty to the province of New Brunswick, providing that a judge may reside either at St. John, the larger city, or at Fredericton, the capital, where the appellate courts are held. If he lives at Fredericton and has to go to St. John he is allowed expenses, and he is also allowed travelling expenses when performing any judicial duties in any other part of the province. Judges, however, are not permitted to live in any part of the province they choose and charge up their travelling expenses when going to St. John or Fredericton, where they ought to reside. The object of the Bill is to limit the amount now paid by the country for travelling expenses to judges who do not see fit to reside in the proximity of the chief court. The proposal is a most reasonable one, and I do not care to make an exception in regard to New Brunswick.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister contends that this will effect a saving, but, as a matter of fact, it will not. He allows travelling expenses from Fredericton to St. John and vice versa, or from either of these places to Moncton. I do not see why he could not allow expenses from Moncton to there.


Hugh Guthrie: That judge could live in Fredericton or St. John.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He could by selling his property. It is a great convenience to the lawyers in all the counties on the north shore of the province to have a judge resident in Moncton, where a large amount of legal business is done, and I really do not see that the Government will save much money through this provision. I voice my protest against it as working a great injustice to the practising barristers, as well as to the litigants in that section of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Hugh Guthrie: Now.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think it should be read the third time to-night.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Next sitting of the House.


POST OFFICE ACT, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (for the Minister pf Justice), Bill No. 57, to amend the Post Office Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-insuring mail matter.
Hugh Guthrie: The present law, paragraph V, of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Post Office Act, provides that the Postmaster General may:
(v) Establish a system providing for indemnity for losses of registered mailable matter, such indemnity in no case to exceed twenty-five dollars for any one registered piece, or the actual value thereof if less than twenty-five dollars, and fix an insurance fee or a scale of insurance fees to be prepaid in respect of such mailable matter, and, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary for carrying out such system;
The change proposed by the amendment is to establish a system under which the maximum value of insurable mail matter shall be $100 in any one case, and to fix a scale of insurance fees, payable in respect of postage, up to $100. The actual value of the article, or the parcel, may be stated by the person who sends the mail matter and on that value the fee will be fixed.


James Alexander Robb: Is this an international regulation?


Hugh Guthrie: It is international to the extent that this is the law which now applies in Great Britain and in the United States. I am not able to say whether other countries in the Postal Union have adopted it.


Mr. PARENT:: In what company is the insurance carried?


Mr. McMASTER:: Does the Government carry the insurance itself?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, the Government charges a reasonable fee and carries the insurance itself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What objection, if any, would there be to raising that minimum substantially? There may be some objec-

tion and I would be glad to know if there is, because it would be of decided convenience to the public, I should judge, if the minimum were placed at a higher figure than $100.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that in
Great Britain, and also in the United States, the maximum is higher than $100. But the idea was that we would start with that maximum, try it out in actual operation for probably a year, and then, if the operation justified such a course, we might increase it. But we would like to try it out with this limitation in the meantime. I do not know what the limitation is in Great Britain and the United States but it is higher than $100.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is there any company dealing with such matters at the present time?


Hugh Guthrie: There are a number of companies which insure valuable packages, either by post, express or by freight. For instance bonds transmitted through the mails, are, as. a rule, insured in recognized insurance companies.


Georges Parent: The minister's remarks would indicate that there is a special branch of the Post Office Department under which this insurance is carried on. If that is the case who is in charge of such special branch?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no such branch,
I am informed, in the Post Office Department.


Georges Parent: How does the minister reconcile that statement with his previous statement that insurance was carried on in the department. If there is such a branch, I would ask what insurance company is carrying the insurance that the hon. gentleman has been talking about?


Hugh Guthrie: The post office insurance to-day is carried on under the section of the Post Office Act which I am asking the repeal of. There is at present a limitation in that section, the maximum value of parcels insurable is $25, and the usual fee of ten cents is charged for registration.


Georges Parent: To whom does the premium go?


Hugh Guthrie: The premium, if that term be correct, derived from the sale of registration stamps goes to the Post Office Department.


Georges Parent: To what company does it go after that?


Hugh Guthrie: It stays in the coffers of the Government of Canada, which bears the loss.


Edmond Proulx: Does the department assure itself that the amount of money claimed has been put in the letter? Otherwise it is possible for frauds to occur. A man might get a letter insured for $100 and still not have that amount in the letter.


Hugh Guthrie: The door is always open for a certain amount of fraud, at the instance of evilly disposed persons, in regard to every matter of insurance. All that one can do is to take every reasonable precaution to prevent fraud, although I am satisfied that frauds in regard to insurance are committed from time to time the world over. The experience in this country is limited, of course, but we have not found that fraud is perpetrated in these matters, although it may have happened.


Georges Parent: Does the department make any money out of this insurance proposition?


Hugh Guthrie: There is the ordinary ten cent fee charged for registration now, and as a result of that registration there is an insurance up to $25. Whether we have made any money out of insurance or not it is hard to say. The old registration rate was five cents.


Georges Parent: The Deputy Postmaster General is present and he ought to know whether the department has m^de money out of that insurance or not.


Hugh Guthrie: Before the clause in question was adopted the experience in the Post Office Department was that there was a net loss on registered mail. I am informed that with the ten cent registration rate, and the limitation of $25 of insurance, the department thinks it is coming out about even or perhaps a little better than that.


Georges Parent: That is not my question. I asked whether the insurance has brought a revenue to the department?


Hugh Guthrie: There has been no insurance in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 2-Letters posted unpaid or underpaid to go forward charged with double postage.
Hugh Guthrie: This contemplates a change. The present system, as the committee is aware, is that where a letter is partially prepaid it is forwarded to its

destination and a double amount of postage is there collected from the recipient of that letter. Letters which are wholly unpaid are not forwarded to the address but go direct to the dead letter office. The system proposed under this clause is that letters wholly unpaid shall go forward to the person to whom they are addressed, and from that person shall be collected double the amount of the ordinary postage. I am informed that this is the system adopted by every country in the Postal Union save Canada. The experience in other countries has proved the worth of this proposal, and the Post Office Department here desires to adopt it. It has been suggested that the system will be open to some kind of manipulation whereby people out of revenge or spite, if they like, may send anybody unpaid mail matter and the recipient will be charged double postage but that has qot been the experience, I understand, in other countries. Another thing to be noted is that under the present Post Office law, letters without postage have to be sent to the dead letter office, and very frequently they do not contain the address of the sender. Under the present law we can charge the sender the amount of unpaid postage when the letter reaches the dead letter office; but so many communications are signed anonymously or with the word "father," "mother," "aunt," or "John," or "Henry" or the like that there is in reality no address and consequently a large amount of postage is annually lost. Under the system proposed by this clause the recipient will receive the letter and double postage will be demanded. The letter will only go to the dead letter office in the event of its refusel by the recipient.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would the law compel the addressee to accept an unstamped letter?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is any law to compel a person to accept a letter from the post office. If he does accept it he must pay double postage.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am afraid the section as drafted leaves the matter somewhat in doubt. It says:
Letters addressed to any place in Canada on which the postage has not been prepaid or not sufficiently prepaid by the sender shall he forwarded to their desitnation charged with double the amount of the postage thereon-
Now, if the Government charges something against a citizen it seems to me there is an implication that the citizen is obliged to pay.


Hugh Guthrie: Not if he refuses delivery: "shall be collected on delivery."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-obligations to ferrymen:
Georges Parent: What is meant by "ferryman" in this clause?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose it is the usual interpretation of the word "ferryman"; that is, any man in charge of a small water craft plying between well known points.


Georges Parent: Between the city of
Quebec and the Isle of Orleans, a distance of about six miles, there is a ferry service. For about a year past the man in charge of the mails on the island of Orleans has been using the ferry boat for his bags of mail without paying the ferry company anything for the privilege. Under the Liberal regime the Government used to pay for the carriage of those, mails on the ferry. Is this clause intended to meet a case of this sort? This section reads, "Every ferryman shall, upon request and without delay, convey over his ferry," etc. That leaves the Government plenty of scope to satisfy their friends. Moreover the section provides that "such service may be fixed by contract." It does not say that it shall be fixed by contract, again making it possible for the Government to protect their friends whenever they want to. "And shall in no case exceed what is ordinarily charged the public." I know of no case where the public is charged for carrying so many bags of mail as in this particular case. In the summer time the island of Orleans is one of the most attractive holiday resorts in the Dominion, and with the ferry boats filled with bags of mail, for which the company does not receive any consideration, the regular passenger accommodation is restricted.
I do not think it is right that a ferry company should be called upon to carry the mails free.


Hugh Guthrie: I can assure my hon. friend that this section is not drafted with regard to any case such as he has in mind. But there is an idea among the public that when working for the Government they should charge more than they would charge a private corporation or person. This clause enables the Government to have its mails carried on a ferry at the same rate as the public is charged, and if a horse and carriage with a quantity of mail has to be conveyed by ferry the charge will be just the same as that for the conveyance of ordinary freight. There is no

injury to any one. This section merely fixes a uniform rate for ferrymen throughout the Dominion, and it is to be the ordinary rate charged to the public.


Georges Parent: Where will you draw the line? The city of Quebec is seven miles from the island of Orleans; would you call that distance a ferry?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Georges Parent: If the distance was thirty miles would it be a ferry?


Hugh Guthrie: I would not draw any line. I think the word "ferry" has a well understood legal meaning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the section repealed?


Hugh Guthrie: The section repealed provides for a system of arbitration as to prices and the like. It is very cumbersome and involved.


Georges Parent: I do not want to let that go-	,


Georges Henri Boivin: The member for
Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) has tried to speak two or three times.


John Flaws Reid: In Saskatchewan our ferries belong to the Provincial Government, and this section would give rise to disputes as to who is to arrange the contract, whether the mail carrier or the Federal Government. Who is to arrange the contract?


Hugh Guthrie: The contract may be made between the man who owns or operates the ferry and the Postmaster General.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is there any penalty attached to a refusal to make a contract?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a general penal clause in the Post Office Act in regard to refusal by any one to carry His Majesty's mails. That clause would be operative.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In that case quite a hardship will arise, especially in the province from which I come. We have a number of large rivers that are crossed by ferries; there are few bridges. When the ice is running out in the spring or forming in the fall it is almost impossible to operate those ferries. In such a case would the ferryman be liable to a penalty for not operating?


Hugh Guthrie: No natural obstruction, or obstruction by act of God, would render any ferryman liable.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The section provides: "Every ferryman shall upon request and without delay, convey over his ferry," etc. No provision is made for delay on occasions when it would be difficult to operate the ferry. For instance, it might not be possible to operate at night. Then, when the logs are being driven the crossing of the stream by the ferry is often a very hazardous operation. Many of the small rivers in our part of the country are crossed by a ferry which is attached to wire cables stretched from one side of the river to the other, the boat drifting across with the current. When the logs are running down there might easily be times when the operation of the ferry would be very dangerous. I would like to know how the minister intends to work that out.


Hugh Guthrie: The contract, I suppose, would provide that the mail couriers should be ferried across only at reasonable times and at reasonable hours. Certainly the inability of a ferryman to cross owing to obstructions or difficulties by reason of weather conditions would not render him liable to penalty. The mail courier would have to accept the usual terms and conditions applying to the ferry service. There would be no liability on the part of the ferryman in the case my hon. friend mentions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The language of this section would appear to be a little vague. It reads:
Every ferryman shall, upon request and without delay, convey over his ferry any courier or other person travelling with the mail, and the carriage and horse or horses or other vehicle employed in carrying the same; and the sum to be paid for such service may be fixed by contract.
If the ferryman refuses to carry the mail under the ordinary conditions, who shall determine the price? It cannot be the department; it cannot be the ferryman. What would be the procedure?


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed that practically every ferryman has a tariff of fees which he charges to the general public. Well, that would be the binding tariff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In municipalities in our provinces the operation of no ferry is authorized unless there is a schedule of rates for the public. I do not know how it is in the other provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed that that is general throughout Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who, then, shall determine the price if the ferryman for some



reason, say on account of inconvenient hours, refuses to carry the mail across the river? Is there provision for an arbitration? Is there any reference to the courts?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see how any difficulty can arise. No ferryman could be asked to make anything but his ordinary trips; all we are entitled to is regular trade at his regular rates. If a man should bluntly say he would not do it, there is a clause in the Act which will penalize him.


John Howard Sinclair: There might be circumstances under which the man could not do it. For instance, I know of ferries which are not equipped to carry horses, whereas this Bill provides that the ferryman shall convey the courier and his horse and wagon. I have no objection to the general clause, but how does the minister expect to settle disputes? Will he send an inspector or an officer of the department to find out what the usual charge is and then have the courier tender that to the ferryman?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the idea. The post office inspector will find out what his tariff of fees is for ordinary trade and we shall pay him the same as he charges to the public.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has there been any hold-up necessitating this legislation?


Hugh Guthrie: No, but there has been an arbitration, I am told-most unsatisfactory and long drawn out-and we may be threatened with others. Of course, a man could not be asked to build a special equipment or operate special boats to carry the Government business; if he has not the equipment he could not be expected to convey the mails unless a new contract were made for that purpose.


John Howard Sinclair: Will
this measure apply to the Government ferry on the Strait of Canso where the Minister of Railways is the ferryman?


Mr. BUTTS:: My hon. friend does not need to be reminded that there are many ferries in Nova Scotia subsidized by the present Murray Government where there is no water.


John Howard Sinclair: I was not aware of that.


Georges Parent: Is it the intent of this clause to prevent the payment of subsidies in future in respect of mail service?
	.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think it has any bearing on that point.


Georges Parent: Owing to my poor knowledge of the English language I had to employ the aid of Webster to find out the meaning of the word "ferry." It means:
A place of crossing; a place of passage where persons or things are carried across a river, arm of the sea, etc., in a boat; a vessel in which passengers and goods are conveyed over narrow waters; a ferry-boat.
When I mentioned a moment ago the river St. Lawrence, Quebec city and the island of Orleans I contended that the service operated between Quebec city and that island was not a ferry service. My complaint is that the Post Office Department has treated that service as if it were an ordinary ferry service and has never paid a cent for the transportation of the mails between those points. In years past it was otherwise, and quite properly so, but during the last two years or so it has been treated quite differently. I would like the' minister to look into this matter with a view to doing justice to a company which is carrying large quantities of mail without any remuneration whatever.


Hugh Guthrie: I will take pleasure in directing the attention of the Postmaster General to the point raised by my hon. friend. It is a matter of legal interpretation whether it is a ferry or not a ferry. I would give my off-hand opinion that it is a ferry, notwithstanding the fact that there is a distance of seven miles to travel. However, I may be wrong. If it is not a ferry, as my hon. friend contends, this section has no application to it.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Who is the Postmaster General?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to put a question bearing on clause 1?


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the unanimous
consent of the committee that the hon. member for Maisonneuve may refer to clause 1?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I approve clause 1,
because I found that, in years gone by, this post insurance business was done exclusively by American companies. Now I see that there is on the Order Paper notice by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) of a resolution dealing with insurance companies. I want to know, in connection with this, if those American insurance companies who were dealing in post insurance

will continue the business in view of the fact that the Post Office Department is now taking this business to itself.


Hugh Guthrie: There is in the Act, so
far as I know, no prohibition to prevent any insurance company, if it so desires, from doing post insurance business in this country. The question whether it is necessary to put any restrictions on this business is a matter for discussion and consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Hugh Guthrie: I think, up to the limitation mentioned in the clause, my hon. friend is correct. If I had my way, I would give a monopoly to the Post Office Department of insurance of mailable packages up to $100; but as regards the tremendous number of packages which go through the mails with very large amounts of money in them, private corporations should still be entitled to insure those. Look at the shipments of bonds and cash far in excess of $100. Up to $100, I think, it would be practicable to grant a monopoly to the Post Office Department for insurance. That is only my opinion; I have never heard the matter discussed, but my hon. friend's suggestion seems very reasonable.
Bill reported.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall the Bill be read the third time?	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Next sitting of the
House. In the meanwhile I would ask my hon. friend to look into this question and see if it should not be enacted that post office insurance should belong to the Post Office Department exclusively up to $100, the receipts appertaining naturally to the Post Office Department.
135i


Hugh Guthrie: It might be more appropriate to put that in the Insurance Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite competent
for the minister to move the third reading now, if he so desires.


Hugh Guthrie: Next sitting of the
House.


FRENCH TRADE AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) for the second reading of Bill No. 61, respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is particularly interested in this Bill, and if he had known it was coming up to-night, I am sure he would have been here.


George Green Foster: Does my hon.
friend think it wise to let him know that it is coming up to-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will let him know at once.


George Green Foster: We will go on and discuss it; we shall not get very far before he comes up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On clause 1-short title.
George Green Foster: It might be
well for me to make a short statement with reference to the general purport of the agreement itself, before we go into the different clauses of the Bill.


Andrew Ross McMaster: A little louder please.


George Green Foster: Yes, my voice will rise as I go on. The committee knows quite well that in 1907 and 1909, not to speak of the preceding treaty, or trade, arrangement between Canada and France, there were under negotiation the conventions so-called of 1907 and 1909. They went into effect in the year 1910, and they have been in effect from that time until their cancellation which took place in 1920. After the war had gone on for a little time, France gave notice to all countries with which she had treaty agreements, that she would hold herself free to undertake new negotiations resulting from changes which took place on account of and during the war, and in order to make herself free for that kind of negotiation, notice was

given of the cancellation of those treaties. She accompanied that declaration as regards Canada, and, I think, as regards many other countries, with the statement that it was not because France was indisposed to retain treaty arrangements with reference to trade, but that she wanted to hold herself free as I have stated, the arrangement to go on in the meantime, subject to cancellation by either side on three months' notice. Therefore, the convention was kept in force for a year and a half or more after the notice of which I spoke had been made, on the condition that either party might abrogate or annul the arrangement by giving three months' notice.
In the course of the tariff arrangements which were necessary in Canada in order to get as large a revenue as possible from some articles, particularly those articles with reference to which there was a special schedule in the French convention allowing a certain list of articles to come in at a lower rate than even the intermediate rata, it was found, as that was a minimum tariff below all other tariffs in respect to those goods, that all nations with mostfavoured-nation treaties had a right to the same minimum as France. Therefore, not only did that class of goods which came in from France at a low rate diminish our possible revenues but like goods coming in especially from Switzerland and Japan such as silks, embroideries and all that kind of goods on which they enjoyed as well the minimum made a larger hole in the revenue than it was thought should be allowed during the period of the war. Therefore we came to the conclusion, as I stated, to take advantage of the three months' notice; we gave the three months' notice to France, and in June of 1920, or thereabouts, the treaty so far as Canada was concerned was denounced, and from that time until this importations from France have been carrying the maximum rate of duty in all cases. France, however, was not anxious that there should be a complete severance of trade interchanges betwen the two countries. Canada also desired, if possible, that they could be carried on in some modified form. Under the circumstances it was absolutely impossible, and is at the present moment, to undertake to make a general treaty arrangement with France, or in fact with any other European country, owing to the disorganized state of trade and the emergencies in every one of these countries causing duties to be changed frequently, and in some cases greatly increased, revenues being very much needed.

After certain pourparlers, undertaken and carried on for a number of months, we came at last to a conclusion, when I was in Paris on my way back from Geneva, and agreed upon a modus vivendi or trade agreement by which, subject to four months' notice, certain interchanges of articles should take place between the two countries along a certain line of duties.
The committee will remember that we had three schedules in the convention of 1907 and 1909. One was schedule "A." Under that schedule France imposed only the minimum tariff upon the products of Canada named therein; there were some 152 different items. These had been chosen because they were the items for which Canada would be most likely to find a market in the French Republic. Schedule "A," then marked the goods of Canadian origin which could be taken into France under the minimum tariff. Then came schedule "B"; that contained a list of selected articles, the origin of which was in France, which could be imported into Canada under our intermediate tariff. Then there was a special schedule "C," containing a list of articles, not very large in number, but fairly important in the matter of export for France, on which there were special duties lower than the intermediate tariff.
Now let us see what has taken place with reference to these three schedules. As I stated, on schedule "A" French maximum tariff went into force against importations from Canada and France was in a position to place all these articles under her maximum tariff. With reference to schedules "B" and "C," imports from France into this country, they also came under our maximum tariff on the denunciation of the convention of 1907. The arrangement which was ultimately arrived at was that of the 152 articles in schedule "A," which after the denunciation of the treaty became subject to the French maximum tariff, but which under the old convention went in under the minimum tariff, all except twelve should again be allowed in under the French minimum tariff. Under the present arrangement, these 12 articles are allowed into France at less than the maximum duty, the respective duties at which they are allowed into that country being shown opposite each item in schedule 1 of the Bill before the committee.
With reference to the articles in schedule "C," which had the lowest rating when imported into Canada, these now come in under our intermediate tariff. We give to

those French products the intermediate tariff and France, in return for that, gives us the minimum tariff on all the 152 articles in schedule "A" in the former Convention except twelve. France gives us, in addition to that, a lower tariff, either the minimum, or one lower than the maximum, on the articles in schedule 2 of this Bill. To the most of them she gives the minimum tariff, and to a number of them a tariff which is less than the maximum by a percentage of the difference between the minimum and the maximum duty. That is marked opposite each article.
That about covers the main features of the arrangement we have made. This modus vivendi is with France alone. The convention of 1907 and of 1909 took in the dependencies of France, and gave to articles imported from the French dependencies the same schedule we gave to France, and vice versa, our goods entering these French possessions enjoyed their minimum tariff. The arrangement now is made simply and solely between France and Canada as respects either exports or imports. Its purpose is to carry on as extensive trade exchanges as we can, and to fcontinue the favourable relations we have had, without going back to the maximums in both tariffs; with the condition attached, that by four months' notice either country is in a position to abrogate the arrangement.


William Stevens Fielding: I call my hon. friend's attention again to the form of this document. When it was brought down at an earlier stage we discovered that it was in, shall I say, a very slovenly condition, and I am sorry to say that it is yet imperfect. I think it will be admitted that if we are dealing with an important matter of this sort we are entitled to exact copies of the documents in question. My hon. friend must be mistaken when he says that this schedule to the Bill is an exact copy of the treaty. I cannot imagine that it is, for I never knew a treaty to be in this form. My hon. friend will tell me, no doubt, that what is left out is of no great importance; but that does not meet the situation. Will he say again that the schedule on page 2 of the Bill is an exact copy of the agreement which he is asking us to ratify?


George Green Foster: The schedule to the Bill as it appears here is an exact copy, from beginning to end, of the arrangement as it was agreed to and signed. My hon. friend refers to a paper which
was placed before the House some time ago. That was not the Bill, nor did it pretend to be a copy of it. It was printed and distributed to the members mainly, I suppose, to give information. The Bill was introduced after the resolution was passed, and as it now appears it is an exact copy of the arrangement as made and signed in Paris.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says that the previous document was not a Bill.
I have it in my hand; it is headed: "An Act Respecting a Certain Trade Agreement between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic." That was the document that was circulated in the House, and it is in the form of a Bill. However, I am not pressing the point in regard to the form in which that document appeared, but I again say that if the agreement attached to this Bill No. 61 is an exact copy of the document which my hon. friend calls an arrangement, but which is virtually a treaty, I am amazed at its form. I never knew a treaty to be in the form of this one, and I am persuaded that my hon. friend is under a misapprehension and has really not given us an exact copy of the document.


George Green Foster: I cannot do
more than give my hon. friend my word.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not doubt the hon. [DOT]gentleman's word at all.


George Green Foster: If the hon. member has any misgivings, I will show him the original.


William Stevens Fielding: I should like to see it.


George Green Foster: I do not
imagine that he questions my word.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not require more than the hon. member's word, but it would be interesting to see the original.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister look at the schedule as printed? Does he not think that there is a clerical error in the first article?


William Stevens Fielding: The copy which my hon. friend has handed me is a French version. Now, these documents are generally done in English and French. I am glad that my right hon. friend has such an ample knowledge of the French language that he can manage without an English copy; but in deference to some of us who are not as proficient as he in the French tongue, he might give us an English copy. This is a case, perhaps, in

which we do not want too much French domination.


George Green Foster: The English
copy is an exact and definite translation of the original copy in French, which the hon. member has in his hands. The French
copy he has contains everything together with the names of the signatories.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should not a document of this character be printed in both French and English, and copies of both versions submitted to hon. members? Will my hon. friend tell me that?


George Green Foster: Yes, if you
stick at that.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, the point is
worth discussing.


George Green Foster: The agreement was made between myself and the French authorities, and the text, which was in French, is signed by both parties. I left for London, taking with me one copy of the French version, and when in London I received the assent of the Government to sign the treaty. I signed it in London and sent the French copy back, through the Foreign Office, to Paris. The English translation as we have it here will be signed by the French authorities and two copies will then be forwarded to me, one to be signed by me and sent back, the other to remain in my possession. So that we shall then have both English and French copies, signed. '


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to press what may seem to some to be an unimportant point, but does my hon. friend suggest that he is doing right when * he brings down what purports to be a correct copy of a treaty, and gives us only the French version? We are not all as proficient as my hon. friend in the French language, and those of us who unfortunately, are in that unhappy position, ought to have an English copy. After all, the English speaking members have some rights in this House. What is the reason we have no English copy?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has the English translation, as well as the original, in the French language, and the names of the four signatories." He has everything, so that if he had the original signatories on the English copy he would get no more information than he has now, nor can I get any further light on

the subject by reason of the little knowledge of French that I have.


William Stevens Fielding: If one wanted to be technical, one might ask the minister what the meaning of the following is:
Signed:	Hardinge of Penshurst, H.M.S.
"Ambassador."
What does that mean?


George Green Foster: I did not notice the fact before, but my hon. friend evidently has the signatories on that copy too.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes; I happen to have two copies but the signatories do not correspond exactly. I am not suggesting that there is any material difference, but I am asking that the business of the House be done in a business-like way and that we be given exact copies of documents. I do think that we ought to have an exact copy. I have one copy with the signatures. Another printed copy, which also purports to be a correct translation, is signed "Hardinge of Penshurst, H.M.S. Ambassador." That is on one of the printed copies and not on the other. I confess I am not sure what the "H.M.S. Ambassador" means.


George Green Foster: Were there two printed copies?


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend I got two printed copies-one that I have received now and one that my hon. friend circulated before.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is sticking at a mighty little point. I gave no orders at all for the printing of the document that my hon. friend got into his hands the other day and about which he has raised a deuce of a row. That was printed by somebody, but was not the Bill which I presented, because the Bill had not been introduced at that time. The Bill as introduced was printed and my hon. friend now has a copy "of it in his hand. I find that he has a copy with the signatures, as printed, as well.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


George Green Foster: Then my hon. friend might drop the thing he got before which was not authorized and which was not a copy of my Bill. He has now an exact copy of the Bill and he can lay the other sheet aside. I am sorry it got into his hands if it riles him so.


William Stevens Fielding: It has not riled me.


George Green Foster: It seems to have worked that way somehow or other. He has

now exactly in English what appears in the French version. What is the signature that he has on the treaty in French? The one I have is signed " Hardinge of Pen-shurst " and " G. E. Foster."


William Stevens Fielding: This is signed "Hardinge of Penshurst, H.M.S. Ambassador;" and " G. E. Foster."


George Green Foster: My hon. friend had better drop the other little sheet. It is not an authorized copy, I am fully satisfied.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend seems to think it is making a great disturbance to ask that documents-solemn documents, that we require to deal with in the House- shall be presented to us in correct form. To do that is not raising a hulabaloo; it is nothing but fair to the House that the documents we are called upon to deal with should be absolutely in correct form. My hon. friend has said that he did not authorize these documents. He did not say that the other day: he told us the Bill had been printed. Pie told us that the treaty had been printed and I find it has been sent out in a different form. In one case, as I have already stated, it is signed "Hardinge of Penshurst, H.M.S. Ambassador." I presume that is correct, but I am only calling for legitimate information when I ask what is the meaning of these initials.


George Green Foster: I suppose they would represent His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think they stand for " His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador. " Perhaps the initials in my hon. friend's copy are different from those in mine. There is another material difference. I am curious to know how important business of this character could be presented in such-i wish to say it without being offensive -a very slovenly manner. When we call the attention of my hon. friend to the difference between these documents he replies that they could not have got here through his action. He told us at first that he had brought down the treaty, and when we drew his attention to the fact that the document in our possession was not what it purported to be my hon. friend repudiated it.


George Green Foster: Will my hon. friend allow me to make another explanation? I had no more idea what he had in his hand than I have of the sort of trumpet the Archangel Gabriel will sound when he comes on the Last Day. I know I had
ordered the preparation of the Bill, and I had a copy of the Bill in my hand when the resolution was introduced. My supposition was that the hon. gentleman had exactly the same printed document that 1 had but it appears that he had not. Again I say to him that I authorized no distribution of documents such as he speaks of. What was taken and printed was the document that I sent to be embodied in the Bill itself, and it seems to have happened that it was printed in order to give information as soon as possible to the members of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend supposes I have some document that was unauthorized. I had only the same document that every other hon. member of the House got; it was laid on the Table and my hon. friend at the time it was done said he had brought down the document. The difference in this matter may not be important in itself, but I do say that in a matter of this kind business ought to be done in a more regular and complete form.


George Green Foster: I never said I laid the document on the Table. What I stated was that documents were laid on the Table. There was laid on the Table an exact copy of the treaty. That was done when I was not here and that is what I suppose the hon. member had in his hand.


William Stevens Fielding: When I asked for this treaty I was certainly informed that it had been laid on the Table.


George Green Foster: It was laid on the Table by the Prime Minister.


William Stevens Fielding: The document laid on the Table was the document I have in my hand, the document that every other member got. My hon. friend endeavours to convey the impression that I had some sort of a strange document that other hon. gentlemen did not have. It is somewhat inconceivable that this document would have emanated from any other department than that of the hon. gentleman himself. Having called attention to that, suppose we now try to find out what "H.M.S. Ambassador," as printed on one document, means. If I understood my hon. friend's explanation correctly, it was that all the concessions that were granted to France under the former treaty are continued, is that correct?


George Green Foster: I did not catch my hon. friend's question.


William Stevens Fielding: I understood from my hon. friend's explanation that all the con-

cessions contained in our former treaty with Prance are continued to that country-[DOT]


George Green Foster: Oh, no.


William Stevens Fielding: Except as to the
colonies.


George Green Foster: I said quite the opposite. I might repeat, as my hon. friend was not here when I gave the explanation that as regards schedule "A" "Exports from Canada to France " in convention of 1907 the minimum tariff applies to all these articles with the exception of twelve. With reference to the articles in schedules "B" and "C" "Imports from France to Canada" the intermediate tariff is given. That is instead of getting less than the intermediate tariff on any they get the intermediate tariff, and that only, on all.


William Stevens Fielding: That is on goods coming into Canada?


George Green Foster: Into Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry I was not present to hear the first part of my hon. friend's explanation. Under schedule one, do I understand that Canadian products are not to benefit any more by the minimum tariff, that is Canadian products going into France?


George Green Foster: The minimum
applies on all articles save twelve.


William Stevens Fielding: When the percentage
is given, does that mean the percentage of the total duty? For example, here is a list of articles which we are told are to come in under fifteen per cent. The column is headed "Percentages" and below appears the figures "15 per cent" what does that mean-fifteen per cent of what?


George Green Foster: That means
fifteen per cent, as stated in the agreement, of the difference between the maximum and the minimum duties. There is a maximum duty and there is a minimum duty. The difference between the two is taken and fifteen per cent of that constitutes the rebate for that article. My hon. friend will see that that percentage never varies. The maximum may vary, the minimum may vary and consequently the result of the percentage may vary, but it is always the same percentage-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would the minister
take a specific case and work it out. I am something like the Oxford undergraduate who said he did not have the low cunning to understand figures; therefore I would like to see a specific case worked out.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is not ignorant in that respect. The way it is arrived at is this. Supposing that the maximum is eighty francs, remember, in kilograms, taking the units-


William Stevens Fielding: Give us the maximum and the minimum.


George Green Foster: Yes. Supposing the maximum tariff is eighty francs and supposing the minimum tariff is twenty francs; subtract twenty from eighty and that leaves you sixty, and you will get fifteen per cent of that as a rebate.


William Stevens Fielding: Of the sixty?


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend give us the effect of this as applied to some articles of Canadian export in order that we may be able to see at a glance what the concession amounts to? I would not ask my hon. friend to give us that information at the moment, but before the matter is disposed of I think he might have a statement prepared of the duties imposed on a number of representative articles that we are able to export to France so that we may see the measure of the difference we are getting under this concession.


George Green Foster: I can give my hon. friend the difference in so far as regards products in schedule 1, which, with the exception of some three or four in schedule 2, are the only products to which the percentage principle applies. The others are all on a minimum tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: I really think, having regard to the class of information which my right hon. friend used to ask when he was not on the side that he is on now, that he ought to give us further information in printed form in order that we may study this important document and see its effects. I hope my right hon. friend will have such a document prepared.


George Green Foster: I will be very glad to do that.


William Stevens Fielding: Coming to schedule 2, what would be the meaning of the initials "T.M.T." about the middle of the schedule? They occur in two places.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will strike out the first "T" he will get "M.T."-minimum tariff. That is again an example of the fallibility of the human instrument. The "T" got in through the printer's press somehow or other-the de-

vil was in it I suppose. Of course it should be "M.T."


William Stevens Fielding: I know if that was the case in any document brought down in former days no one in the House was more keen to observe it and show the enormity of the blunder than my hon. friend. So, he must not object if we insist upon this treaty being correct to a "t."


George Green Foster: My hon.
friend is quite aware that when a bill comes before the House and is gone through section" by section, it is up to the man who is putting it through to see that little errors are corrected. Now, this little one will be corrected when we come to it.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to say to my right hon. friend that it is up to the minister in charge of a bill, and especially an important bill to ratify a treaty, to see that he gives the House correct information at the beginning and not force us to draw it out of him in this way. I; hope he will take a wider interpretation as to the duty of the minister in the case, and not merely ask the Clerk of the House to discover whether the minister is doing his work well. I do not think it is fair to impose that responsibility on the Clerk.


George Green Foster: But suppose the Bill had been so very, very perfect, my hon. friend would have had no ground of criticism, and that would be awful.


William Stevens Fielding: I know. I do not want to criticise the minister. I think he will find many occasions when I have had to compliment him. On the whole I have been rather a friendly critic.


George Green Foster: I think you
have been splendid on the whole.


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Green Foster: It is "M.T."- minimum tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: We get the full minimum in that case?


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose this is virtually a new treaty? The old treaty had expired.


George Green Foster: The old treaty had expired. Yet I think this is absolutely true, that the French Government has treated Canadian importations up to the present time under the old convention, if not in all cases, in most cases, not because she was obliged to, but because she was willing to.


Andrew Ross McMaster: While we are all
aware of the efficacy of a soft answer in turning away wrath, yet we Would like the answer not to be so soft as to prevent us hearing the words of wisdom that fall from the lips of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: Before that question of initials is finally settled, I wish to contribute to an accurate interpretation of those letters "H.M.S." I listened to the exchanges between my two hon. friends with very great attention. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's suggested that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce said those letters might mean ''His Britannic Majesty."


William Stevens Fielding: I quoted that from
my hon. friend.


Michael Clark: That is just what I say. But I am positive that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce never used the word "Britannic" I want to clear him of that aspersion. He could not have used the word "Britannic" as representing "H," "M" or ''S." He is too good a scholar to do that. So the only mystery is about the "S." Now I cannot accept the explanation of my hon. friend from Brome, because we all know that "Hardinge" is not a ship, and it has just occurred to me that "H.M.S." may mean "His Majesty's Signatory." If I havn not found the right interpretation, I have found something that would be quite right-


George Green Foster: You have got your letters right.


Michael Clark: Yes. "S"
stands for signatory, and "Hardinge" is a signatory. If that will help the researches in this matter I think it is my duty to put my thought at the disposal of the minister; and I do hope if he cannot find out the real meaning of "S" he will take my suggestion and simply call "H.M.S." His Majesty's Signatory.


William Stevens Fielding: If I ignore the first document and confine myself to the second

one, it purports by the title to be "an Act respecting a certain trade agreement between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic." I must not he too positive, because one sometimes in the hurry does not see things, but so far as I can observe there is not a word within the four corners of this treaty which has any mention of His Majesty in any shape or form, and if you strike out this "H.M.S." which my hon. friend suggested might stand for His Majesty^ Ship or something of that sort, there is absolutely no reference to His Majesty the King in the whole transaction from beginning to end. Am I correct?


George Green Foster: The reading
there is very plain, as my hon. friend says.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend does not deny it?


George Green Foster: I cannot.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps it is an evidence of our new nationhood that we now make treaties without reference to His Majesty?


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I suggest my
hon. friend should change the title of this Bill. It is not an agreement between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic; there is no reference to His Majesty in it. Surely it is making improper use of His Majesty's name. If His Majesty is not worth mentioning in the document itself I do not think we ought to make His Majesty responsible by putting his name in the title. In that respect it is a rather remarkable document. However, I simply call my right hon. friend's attention to it; I hope that before the matter goes through he will be able to give us some further information with regard to the point I have suggested.


George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend has sufficiently digested the original, may I ask that he send it over to me?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has not given us an English copy. I must say I do not think that is quite satisfactory. I do not suggest that there is any difference, but it is a strange proceeding, it seems to me, to have a document of this kind brought down to us in French and not in English. Generally it is the other way; our French friends have reason to complain at times that documents are brought down in English and not in French. I want to stand 
now for the rights of the English in this matter; I do not think we are getting a fair show.


George Green Foster: I am very
glad to have made it possible for my hon. friend to feel the lash, as well as other English representatives on that side.


William Stevens Fielding: Any concession which
is granted to the French Republic under this treaty will be given to many other nations, will it not?


George Green Foster: It will be given to all most favoured nations.


William Stevens Fielding: Do those other nations give us compensation for anything they may get by virtue of this treaty?


George Green Foster: Those other
nations all have most favoured nation treaties with us and under them, as my hon. friend knows, they get the treatment accorded to any new nation that comes in under the treaty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can my right hon.
friend give a list of those nations?


George Green Foster: Argentina,
Colombia, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and Japan. Three other countries were given special advantages when my hon. friend was Minister of Finance; I think it would he about the time that the French convention was ratified- that is, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy. Belgium and the Netherlands were given the intermediate tariff, on the same list of goods, if I remember rightly, as was allowed to come in by France and Italy on a less extended list. They still get the same advantages.


William Stevens Fielding: All these eight nations my right hon. friend first named get concessions under this treaty and give nothing in return?


George Green Foster: France gets
no concession under this treaty that is not already given to these countries; consequently they do not benefit by the present arrangement made with France. If afterwards we give to any other nation treaty or tariff benefits lower than these, the most favoured nations come in and enjoy the same.


William Stevens Fielding: I note that quite a
change has come over tny hon. friend with respect to these favoured nations. When the reciprocity treaty-not as we discussed yesterday, but as it was years ago -was presented to this House, the late

Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition, and hon. gentlemen generally who were then in Opposition made a great fuss oyer the fact that the concessions which were granted to the United States would have to be granted also to a large number of other nations. But we have here a recognition of the favoured nation treaty. The right hon. gentleman's statement is quite correct; any concession that has come to France in this matter will be given to all the favoured nations. My right hon. friend, therefore, has come to an appreciation of the value of these favoured nation treaties which he did not entertain at that time. It was considered by our friends at that time to be a very serious offence on our part when we agreed to make any concessions to these nations without their giving us something in return. I do not see anything wrong in it; I simply remind my right hon. friend that his point of view is quite changed. [DOT]


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will never fail to remind me; I observe that he is going to perform that duty to the letter. I shall not go into the discussions of 1910 and 1911 on the reciprocity treaty. Circumstances differ from time to time. We have to-day ten nations that have most favoured nation treatment. If to-morrow the question came to be discussed whether we should give to another nation lower rates of duty on a list of articles than we are now giving to most favoured nations, I would argue, as I do now, that we would have to give similar reductions to those ten nations and that we would have to be mighty careful before we made the reduction to the eleventh nation. That, if my memory serves me correctly, is what I was arguing in 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Although the treaty
does not seem to be over-generous, I am satisfied with it so far as it goes. I appreciate the difficulties met by the right hon. gentleman when he went to France to revise the old treaty. All those who have been in Europe of late know that the French Government is facing very serious difficulties on account of the reparations problem, the devastated areas, the depreciation of French currency, and other serious considerations resulting from the war. The French Government, therefore, are somewhat diffident about entering into definite commercial arrangements with other countries. Without going into the details of the treaty-we shall have an opportunity to do so at a later stage-I may say that
I am gratified to know that the Canadian Government has revived our trade agreement with France, though it is modified in some ways. Indeed, if I had my own way, having regard to the sacrifices made by France during the war, I would he disposed to give France, if not the British preference, the next to it. Of all the allies, France is the most deserving. Besides, during the unfortunate period of the war the French people traded extensively with Canada. We have only to look at the figures which are to be found in the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Whilst, in 1914, imports from France amounted to $14,276,000; in 1918, they fell to $5,274,000; in 1919, they were $3,632,000 and, in 1920, there is a revival; I see that in that year we imported from France goods to the value of $10,609,122. This is just a fair business on our part with France; but look at what we are selling to France, what an important market it is for Canadian manufacturers and exporters generally. Whilst, in 1914, Canada exported to France goods to the value of $3,632,444; during the war, in 1918, of necessity of course because of the war, Canada exported to France goods to the value of $210,526,297. In 1919, a year after the armistice, I see that, not-wnthstanding the cessation of hostilities, Canada exported to France goods to the value of $96,103,142, and in 1920, without a treaty, without any special favour, France opened her ports to Canadian produce to the extent of $61,106,938. This is in spite of all a most gratifying result. After the United States and Great Britain, France is the best customer we have in the world and surely that market is worth cultivating.
I am sure, if the right hon. gentleman will take under his especial care the administration of this treaty, there is a strong probability that we may not only maintain, but increase this very interesting figure of $61,000,000, which represents our total exports to France during the last fiscal year.
But my right hon. friend, if he will administer this treaty as he should, will do what he was advised to do the other evening. I have been in France on several occasions and I must say that it is not possible to expect that trade with Canada will undergo any great expansion, excluding, of course, the period of the war, if only one solitary agent is maintained in France. As things stand at present, we have just one little office, in the Commissioner General's office, in Paris, with one agent. France has a population of thirty-nine or forty million. Paris, of course, is a great centre;

one might say that, on Continental Europe, Paris is the great centre, but Paris is not all Prance. There are in the north and in the south, in the east and in the west, very important commercial centres in France. The most important centre of commerce in France from all times has been the northern section. Take cities like Lille, Le Havre;" take cities like Bordeaux, Marseilles, two of the largest ports of the world, and Lyons. If you have no representatives in those cities, which are the nerve centres of French commerce and industry, you cannot develop those channels of trade which you are seeking to establish between Canada and France. I know, of course, that you cannot depend only on your trade agents; but trade agents, well trained, having exhibits of Canadian products, trade agents who are absolute masters of the French language, will in France be of very great help to our manufacturers and traders generally in Canada. The present trade organization from the point of view of the Department of Trade and Commerce is next to nil. Mr. Barre, our representative in Paris, whom I have seen at work, is a most excellent gentleman. He saw some service during the late war, and he is doing his very best; but he cannot be ubiquitous, and he cannot answer to all calls that are made upon him by French business men. Therefore, I would urge upon my right hon. friend to do something in the way of promoting Canadian trade in that great country.
As my right hon. friend stated the other day, there is, in that train exhibit which will soon roll on the Canadian and the French railway systems, a hope that there will be an interest revived in both countries as regards trade possibilities. But something else must be done. I must say that the right hon. gentleman had Canada fairly well represented at the great Lyons fair, and from the reports which I have read, published by boards of trade, the Canadian exhibits created a splendid effect at that fair. But that is not sufficient; that can strike only one particular spot. There should be a more "live wire" organization all throughout France. Let us not forget that France is the third country on the list of our customers; it comes next to the United States and Great Britain, and trade with that country should be encouraged as much as possible. It has displaced Germany. On the whole I see with pleasure that this treaty has been negotiated. It has not the same flavour as the old treaty. I think the old treaty was more favourable 
but, of course, I understand the difficulties with which my right hon. friend had to contend when he went to France at the beginning of last winter.
There is another point, which I do not wish to dilate on this evening because we may have another opportunity to discuss the whys and wherefores of it, and that is as to the final signatories of the treaty. For my part, I am a strong Canadian, and I do not object to His Majesty the King being a signatory to that treaty, through the British Ambassador in Paris, or eve1! through the instrumentality of the Foreign Office in London, but what I object to is the subterfuge of my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who of late has been stating ad nauseam that Canada was a nation, that there was such a thing as a Canadian national, and that we enjoyed almost sovereign powers. Yet in the case of this treaty, which is the renewal of an old treaty, we find that my right hon. friend, fresh from the Geneva Conference, where the sovereign rights of Canada were supposed to have been proclaimed throughout the world, knowing the value of words and not carried away by the Celtic imagination of his colleague the right hon. the Minister of Justice, goes direct to the Foreign Office in London and from there by a circuitous route to the British Ambassador in Paris to get the agreement signed. It is through the British representative in the Old Country and in France that this treaty has found life. Once more I say, I do not object at all to the British Ambassador or the Foreign Office in London intervening in a purely commercial agreement, but I do object to all this subterfuge of the right hon. Minister of Justice as to Canada being a nation. We may be a nation in his imagination, but when we get down to hard-pan we find that we are still a Dominion, with no sovereignty, and that this treaty would be non-existent but for the signatures on the parchment of Hardinge of Penshurst before that of George E. Foster.
Mr. Chairman, on the whole, I shall support the treaty. I hope, however, that as the matter is a very important one, my right hon. friend will do us the favour of giving my hon. friend to my left his rights, in this case, an English version of the treaty. I stand for the rights of the English majority, as I am sure my right hon. friend would stand for the rights of the French minority, and I therefore appeal to him to give my hon. friend the English version of the French Treaty.

If my hon. friend would consent, I should also like to have copies of the correspondence which is annexed to the original treaty printed and distributed to the members of the House, as I am sure it would be very interesting.


John Howard Sinclair: I have not had very much time to study the treaty, but I have looked over it. My constituency and the part of the Dominion from which I come is especially interested in the fish trade, and I was curious to know if my right hon. friend had endeavoured to get the minimum tariff or get put on the free list any articles that we sell largely to France. I am not familiar with the French tariff, but my right hon. friend is no doubt aware of what articles are on the free list. In glancing over the articles mentioned in schedule 2, which are to enjoy the benefit of a minimum tariff, I was struck by the fact that these are not the articles that Canada is selling to France.
I have the report here of the Department of Trade and Commerce showing the trade we did with France in 1920. I have studied that report to find out what gpods we have been selling to France. My hon. friend the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) has stated that last year we sold $21,000,000 of our products to France, and those products according to this Blue Book published by my right hon. friend, are cattle, horses, sheep, apples, automobiles, breadstuffs including barley, oats, oatmeal, pease, wheat, wheat flour; calcium carbide, coal, fish, canned lobsters, canned salmon, hay, leather, aluminium, copper, iron ore, lead, nickel, milk, paper, provisions, meats, seeds, textiles, vegetables and wood.
Now the articles in the schedule seem to be articles that we do not sell to France.
I cannot see very much benefit in a treaty of that kind. If my right hon. friend had been able to secure some concessions to Canada in respect of articles that we sell to France, the treaty might be of importance to the trade of this country. I would like my right hon. friend to explain how it is that not a single article in this schedule appears in the list of articles that our Canadian merchants and traders sold to France last year. The articles that are to enjoy the benefit of this minimum tariff under the agreement are feathers, for instance. Apparently we did not sell any feathers to France last year.


George Green Foster: You will have
a chance. You can go into the feather business now.


John Howard Sinclair: I presume that the first item is a misprint and
that "nuts" was intended. There are a number of other articles such as prunes, petroleum, steam engines, boilers, heavy oils, padlocks, and so forth, but these do not appear to be articles that we sell to France. I would like to get some information from my right hon. friend as to the efforts that he made to secure some concessions for the natural products of Canada, such as fish, canned salmon and lobsters, oats, flour and wheat, if these_ articles are not already on the free list in Fi ance I should like some information on that phase of the treaty.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has just confined himself to schedule 2. That schedule embraces the articles on which, under the convention of 1907, Canada paid the maximum tariff and not the minimum or lower tariff. These articles have now been added to the list of articles, under the convention of 1907, upon which we formely got the minimum tariff. All the articles mentioned by my hon. friend will be found in the conventions of 1907 and 1909, and if he will read the Bill he will see that all of them, with the exception of 12, are still admitted to the minimum tariff. That is, 140 of the articles are admitted, as before, to the minimum tariff. What the hon. member has read in schedule 2 is over and above the concessions that we got before. These additions may or may not be valuable; some of them are very valuable; but, whether valuable or not, they are in addition to those we had under the convention of 1907. My hon. friend must read them both together in order to get the full list.


William Stevens Fielding: While correct in the main, the minister is inaccurate in one particular. It is true that fish, cattle and so forth, are all to be found in the old convention, and this treaty provides that these shall be continued, except as modified. Of course, in modifying that schedule, we are depriving ourselves of something which we had before. The articles memtioned by the member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), are still in the convention and are not in the least modified.


George Green Foster: Those that are modified are in schedule 1.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to cattle, I remember we had to make a supplementary treaty for that one particular thing. The French authorities were very much perturbed over our taking in fat cattle, and we had to make a supplementary treaty, which was a very trivial matter from our

point of 'view, although it was necessary. My hon. friend says that the articles in scheduled are articles which hitherto have not had the benefit of the minimum tariff and are additions which may or may not be of value. Among the things mentioned , that list is agricultural machinery, which is given as an addition to the articles on which we are to have the minimum. In that respect, the treaty is wrong. Agricultural machinery has the minimum tariff, and has had it since 1907. If my hon. friend will turn to the French convention, giving the list of Canadian products entitled to the French minimum tariff, he will find, in item 522, "agricultural machinery, motors not included''1. It is therefore erroneous to represent agricultural machinery as being something on which we shall now for the first time have the minimum tariff; it is not a new concession. In the old convention there is a long list of articles on which we got the benefit of the French minimum tariff. Under the new convention we do not get the same list, but only a portion of it; for the rest we get a modification. Well, in that case we are clearly losing something which we had under the other treaty. I am not opposing the treaty; I am merely endeavouring to have a clear understanding on this point, and I say that we are losing some things which we had previously. Now, what does France lose, apart from the fact that Algeria and the French colonies are not included? What is she going to give up in this deal? We have to give up something. Does France give up anything, or are we content that she should make no concession?


George Green Foster: France does
give up something which is valuable. My hon. friend will recollect that Schedule "C" was a list of special articles upon which France received a special rate, below all our other rates. She gives that up entirely, and instead of getting that special rate she goes back to the intermediate rates on the articles specified in that schedule. The list of those articles is not very long, but it is very important to France. The articles embraced in the list are of importance to her export trade. The list comprises: Manufactures, of which silk is a component part, 321 per cent; ribbons of all kinds, 25 per cent; velvets of pure silk fabrics, 20 per cent; embroideries, lace, collars, collarets, all manufactures of lace, knittings, all cotton, silk, linen, 271 per cent. And then, with regard to No. 220, in medicinal and pharmaceutical and chemical preparations, books printed in the French language,

and champagne and other sparkling wines in bottles "A. B. C. and D.," she received a special tariff lower than our other tariffs. Then, under 163, she received a lower tariff on all wines of certain descriptions, A. B. and C. She received, under item 120, a special tariff on anchovy, sardines, sprats,
. and other fish packed in oil; and, under 86, she received a special rate on vegetables, tomatoes, etc. All these are articles which were of special importance to France, as my hon. friend knows.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is right when he says that the articles which France is supposed to give up are of importance to her trade. But where does he find any suggestion in the schedule that she is no longer to enjoy the special rates on these articles?


George Green Foster: Article 1 of the Schedule reads:
Canada shall apply to products originating in and coming from France the most favourable tariffs and taxes that are or may be granted by ' Canada to the products of any third power, except those of the United Kingdom, or of British Dominions and possessions.
Now, the lowest minimum of our tariff to-day is the intermediate; we have nothing below that.


William Stevens Fielding: I see a difficulty here. The schedule does not specify the intermediate tariff; it does not fix any definite schedule of rates, and it will be difficult to determine precisely what it means. It does not clearly say that they are to give up anything.


George Green Foster: We do not
specify the intermediate tariff, nor does France give us any definite schedule. The agreement simply says that she will give us the minimum.


William Stevens Fielding: No, not the minimum; she is to give the minimum, subject to modification.


George Green Foster: She gives us the minimum on all articles except twelve, in schedule 1 of this particular modification. That leaves on the original list 140 of the articles that will get the minimum treatment.	-


William Stevens Fielding: It is quite clear under article 1 that we are to give the best treatment we can to foreign countries-that is essentially the most favoured nation principle. But it does not say the intermediate tariff, and I should almost think that there would be a little difficulty

in determining the effect of the clause for customs purposes. Was there any moment at which the old treaty had ceased to exist and there was no convention in existence, or was the treaty continued all the time?


George Green Foster: It ceased by virtue of the denouncement made by Canada and it ceased in so far as imports from France into Canada were concerned at that date. France, I believe, continued for some time, on some articles at least, to allow Canadian exports to go in under the old convention rate-the minimum. I imagine that was because contracts had been made and these goods were being delivered under contract.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend said a little while ago that favoured nation countries, a list of which he read, had these concessions for some time; but I would call his attention to the fact that favoured nation countries received that consideration through the French Treaty, and when the French Treaty ceased the favoured nations ceased to have any special rights. So he would not be correct in stating that all the favoured nations were entitled to have these concessions as in the past. It was a fact that we made a special treaty with France which obliged us to give to all the favoured nations the same rates; but when the treaty with France lapsed the favoured nation countries had no special claim upon us. That is why I ask my hon. friend as to whether there was a time when the treaty had actually expired.


George Green Foster: They would
have no claim upon us for any reductions that were given to France by virtue of the convention of 1907. The fact that we gave to France, in schedule C, lower rates than any of the most favoured nations enjoyed on their exports brought them immediately to the enjoyment of the same privilege. When that treaty ceased they, of course, lost that privilege with regard to those articles.	*


William Stevens Fielding: When the French convention went out they lost any special claim upon Canada, and this country would be free to impose on them any tariff rates it pleased. There must have been a period which is now past, I presume, when we would have had the right to impose on all these nations different duties had we so desired.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask who appointed the gentlemen who signed the treaty on behalf of Canada, and on behalf
of His Majesty? What authority did these gentlemen have to affix their signatures to the treaty?


George Green Foster: The signatories, of course, on the French side were authorized by their government. I suppose they signed as ministers of the French Government. On our side I signed as representing Canada, and the British Ambassador signed as representing the Foreign Office and on behalf of His Majesty, which was necessary in order to make the treaty complete.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, this is not quite clear to me. The Bill says that this agreement was entered into at Paris by representatives appointed by His Majesty. Who acted for His Majesty in the appointment of the representatives? Was there an Order in Council appointing the two gentlemen who signed the treaty?


George Green Foster: I was authorized, as far as I was concerned, by our own Government. That authority was intimated to the Foreign Office, through the Colonial Secretary, and the Foreign Office sent in a despatch to the British Ambassador in Paris to sign on behalf of His Majesty's Government.


Ernest Lapointe: Was there an Order in Council passed by the Imperial Government to that effect?


George Green Foster: I saw none. In making that appointment I presume they followed the usual course.


Ernest Lapointe: It is stated here that the representatives were appointed by His Majesty. By what action of His Majesty were they appointed-only by a message from the Foreign Office?


William Stevens Fielding: Where is it stated that His Majesty appointed them?


Ernest Lapointe: In section 2. I think this is a very important matter. We are certainly entitled to all the particulars in that regard, especially in view of the announcement that we have made important steps on the road to nationhood. I want to know if there has been any change in the method of treaty making on the part of Canada with regard to this particular treaty?	[DOT]


George Green Foster: There has
been no change.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly not.


George Green Foster: There has
been no change. The arrangement that was made at Washington, and the treaty that was made in 1907 by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) were negotiated with the privity of His Majesty's Government and were signed by the -ambassador representing Great Britain at Washington and also by the British Ambassador at Paris. The same thing was done here. There was no very great formality about it as far as I saw, or as far as I was concerned, but it was by the direction of the Foreign Office that the treaty was signed.


Ernest Lapointe: But my right hon.
friend knows that on the dates he has just mentioned we were considered to be a dependency by the United Kingdom. Now we are a sister nation. We have been told that we should be proud that we are a sister nation, enjoying absolute equality of status. Is it an evidence of that if we have to go to the Foreign Office, if our representatives have to be appointed by the Foreign Office, and if, as I know, the treaty has been submitted to the Imperial Government before being signed and put into force? Really there is something wrong as to this claim of our enjoying equality of status. We are a sister nation but the big sister has still more power than the younger one.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing
wrong in the making of the treaty; the only wrong is in the humbug of professing to us that there has been any change in the status of Canada. Canada is growing bigger and more important every day in the eyes of the Empire and in the eyes of the world as well-that much is true. Beyond that, all this talk about a change of status is absolute rubbish-that is the only thing that is wrong. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) states that His Maiesty has sanctioned these appointments. It is true that His Majesty's name is in the Bill, but in this treaty there is no reference to His Majesty from beginning to end. My right hon. friend said there was no formality in the making of treaties before but he is mistaken. He is mistaken in bis reference to the Washington agreement. That was not signed by the British Ambassador at Washington but by representatives of Canada on the one side and those of United States on the other, -but it was not in the form of a treaty. If it had been a treaty it would probably have received the signature of those designated by His Majesty strictly for that purpose.


George Green Foster: But that also was done with the privity of the British Ambassador at Washington.


William Stevens Fielding: With the knowledge of the ambassador, who gave us every help he could. But when my hon. friend says there is no formality, I want to call attention to the fact that there is a great lack of formality, and that is one of the amazing things. Iii the document itself from A to Z there is not any reference to His Majesty, there is nothing to show whether it is made by His Majesty or not, unless this " H.M.S. Ambassador " on one of the printed documents and not on the other refers to His Majesty. The French Convention Act made in 1907 sets forth in the schedlue to the Act:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and the President of the French Republic, being desirous of improving and extending the commercial relations between .Canada and France, have resolved to conclude a Convention with that object and have named as their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:-
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,
His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Freneis Leveson Bertie, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, His Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Government of the French Republic,-


George Green Foster: What an undemocratic lot they were!


William Stevens Fielding: The Honourable William' Stevens Fielding, a member of His Majesty's Honourable Privy Council for Canada, a Member of the Parliament of Canada, Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada;
The Honourable Louis-Philippe Brodeur, a Member of His Majesty's Honourable Privy Council for Canada, a Member of the Parliament of Canada, Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada ;
And the President of the French Republic;
Mr. Stephen Pichon, Senator, Minister of Foreign Affairs;
Mr. Joseph Caillaux, Deputy, Minister of Finance;
Mr. Gaston Doumergue, Deputy, Minister of Commerce and Industry;
Mr. Joseph Ruau, Deputy, Minister of Agriculture ;
Who, after communicating to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:-
There was the usual form of a treaty. There His Majesty's existence was recognized. Nothing of the kind is found in this agreement. I think my hon. friend

who is not very anxious to have His Majesty take any part in this matter should be gratified; he is having his way. I stand for the old form. I want treaties to be negotiated by Canadians for Canadian business, but as ministers appointed as plenipotentiaries for the purpose under the sign manual of His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperior of India.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I should like to associate myself with every effort made by this Government or any other government of Canada along the line of nationhood. I do not see why Mr. Hardinge of Penshurst came into this matter at all. I do not see why the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) our Minister of Trade and Commerce could not have done the whole thing himself, and I would have preferred to see him do it. Then we would not have had all this discussion about the meaning of "H.M.S." after the name of Mr. Hardinge of Penshurst.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You mean Lord Hardinge.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes. I can understand, of course, that the trade agreement could have been made nominally between the King and the President of the French Republic. He would act then as King of Canada, and the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce would act as the minister of the King of Canada. It is quite true that the agreement itself does not mention the name of the King. But I want to express the view, which I believe is entertained by the vast majority of the members of this House sitting on your left, Mr. Chairman, that we accept with pleasure any change of status which brings us to a position of equality. What we do find fault with is the pretension of the Government in words that equality has been achieved when their acts belie their words. I would have had the Minister of Trade and Commerce in Paris do just as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's did at the time of the reciprocity agreement with the United States.


George Green Foster: They were doing two different things.


Andrew Ross McMaster: One was a treaty and the other was entering into an agreement which was not a treaty but merely an agreement for concurrent legislation. I grant that. But after all, both the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the
hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's were dealing as representatives of Canada with a foreign power. In the case of Washington ten years ago the letter evidencing our part of the agreement directed to the Secretary of State of the United States was signed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's himself without any intervention of the British Ambassador.
I can understand the feeling of impatience that the hon. member has when he hears loftly statements of equality of nationhood come from a Government which in its acts has not proceeded along the line of nationhood as far as he did himself by his act. It is true he does not like that direction, and of course his opinion is entitled to every respect which his patriotism and long experience merit. But I do want to say that the members on this side in large measure agree with the aspirations of the Government, and they only want them to be consistent and sincere and to carry themselves along this road not only by words but by deeds.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish only to say a word in view of one statement made by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's indicating that I would rather like to eliminate the name of His Majesty from our treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: His name is not in it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not my sentiment, though. I want to keep the name of His Majesty in any treaty concerning Canada: but I want His Majesty to act through Canadian representatatives appointed by the Canadian Government without the intervention of the Foreign Office in London.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is not a perfect treaty. All this may happen very shortly, because in the schedule I read this:
Pending the conclusion of a new commercial convention, with a view to which negotiations will begin immediately, the French and Canadian Governments have agreed to the following provisions.
So this is only temporary and before long we will have the old form.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like the minister to comply with the request of the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe to bring down the correspondence in this matter before it enters into another stage. He certainly will not think that is unreasonable.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the schedule to consist of new articles that were not in the old treaty?

- 2140


George Green Foster: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: How was this list prepared? Did the minister take the advice of the Manufacturers' Association or of any [DOT] other Canadian parties engaged in trade or business? From whom did this list come?


George Green Foster: It was certainly amusing and a little bit instructive to observe the passage of ideas among my hon. friends on the other side. If the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen s lives, as I hope he will, ten or twenty years _ longer he will be the finest example of the good old autocrat ever seen in this House. His influence will be good with hon. gentlemen on that side; it will curb the somewhat rapid ascent toward a complete democracy which would get rid of all autocratic or kingly affairs and ceremonies as quickly as possible and lead up to that halcyon time in the future which was viewed with the eye of faith if not of natural vision-the time when we should be utterly freed from all these trammels and when a real Canadian could go anywhere, arrange anything in the way of treaties, sign them as he pleased and make them effective no matter where King George was or any other king who sat upon the throne. Well, it does no harm for us to have these little ideas; considering the views advanced on both sides we shall make a pretty fair average when we come to our more mature life. But I hope we shall never come to the time when by any extension of ultra-democracy we shall find ourselves separated from the Empire of which we have long been so important a part. All this persiflage about changed status and that sort of thing is very nice to hear. The younger chaps like it, and we older men sometimes feel as if we had to say something to keep up our end of things. But under it all there is a strong spirit of utter and complete loyalty to British institutions and British constitutional forms. All this cavorting around and airing of our opinions helps to progress, but let us not cut the painter; let us ponder deeply whence we came and keep our eye, too, on the future, with regard to what is the best course for us there. When my hon. friend was reading out those sonorous titles there was, I am sure, a well defined reservation in his mind, sufficient to tame down such adventurous and reckless spirits as that of my hon. friend from Brome and keep them within the traces as [.Mr. Sinclair.]
we pass along the way to our national development.
Now, I was not in Paris trying to make a treaty; that it was impossible to do. I was simply trying to keep the way open to trade between France and Canada during these most strenuous and trying times. Perhaps I am not wrong in saying that France has had to bear greater burdens than any other nation, taking everything into account. She wants to retain for her own workmen as much work as possible she wants to prop herself up in every way that she can and lead up to that readjustment which lies before her, the attainment of which will strain her finances to the utmost. Nobody can go in there and sit down alongside those men and demand this or that; he feels more like giving them almost everything they ask. All I wanted to do, therefore, was to keep this business channel open as far as possible. Speaking frankly, I believe we have given in this little modus vivendi the advantage to France over ourselves. I do not quarrel with that; France gave us all that her statesmen could give us in this modus vivendi. When they took some things from us because they wanted to build up certain industries of their own, in these twelve articles particularly, I tried to get a counterbalance and they gave us this counterbalance which is shown in schedule 2. I had to judge from my own experience during twenty or thirty years of public life what things should be added to that list. Some of the articles are of considerable importance. So when this was put down as the very maximum of what could be granted, I assented to it and put my signature to the paper, and that was all there was to it. If it had been the formation of a permanent treaty which went into all matters in detail, that would have been a different thing. But this is something like a gentleman's agreement, with a view to our doing the best we can until the clouds clear and we can get together and come to a larger and more permanent arrangement. As to forms and things of that kind, is not the substance the main thing? What we did was to have Canadian sentiment and Canadian experience form the basis of the arrangement. The British Government made no cavil about it; after we had arranged it they instructed their ambassador to sign it and he did so as representing Great Britain. It is simply a modus vivendi, as I have said, an arrangement of a temporary character, and it was signed in the regular way. It did not have all the high-sounding names that might be assigned to a formal

treaty, but we have the substance, and that is the main thing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3: Governor in Council may carry out provisions of agreement.
William Stevens Fielding: Does this clause not
vest a rather broad power in the Governor in Council? Of course, if it has been done in other cases I am not disposed to quarrel with it here.


George Green Foster: It is the usual form.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the schedule:
George Green Foster: Schedule II should be amended by striking out the first "T" in the letters which follow items 522 and 525, leaving simply the letters "M.T."


William Stevens Fielding: I notice there is power vested in the Governor in Council in the usual form. I happen to have under my hand now the Act bringing into force the convention of 1908, and I find that it reads:
The Governor In Council may make such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent of this Act and of the said convention.
The operation of all laws inconsistent with the giving to the provisions of the said convention and of this Act their full effect shall from time to time he suspended to the extent of such inconsistency.
But there is nothing in the Act confirming the other treaty to give the Governor in Council power to change it.
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent of this Act and of the said convention.
Why not stop there? Why give the Governor in Council power to make new laws from time to time?


George Green Foster: The first subclause reads:
The Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary.
And so on.


William Stevens Fielding: To the first part I
take no objection.


George Green Foster: Then it reads:
Any Order in Council or regulation made under this Act-
-that is, in accordance with the agreement -will have the same effect as if enacted
in the Act, that is, will have the same force in law.


William Stevens Fielding: What precedent has my right hon. friend for that? It is not in the preceding law, and it is giving the Governor in Council unusual powers. Before the Bill goes through my right hon. friend might look into that.


George Green Foster: Yes. We do
not want any more powers than are necessary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the third reading, my right hon. friend will bring down the correspondence?


George Green Foster: I will see that fhat is brought down before we take the other stage.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Civil Government-mines, salaries, and contingencies, $483,250.
Frank S. Cahill: Have we considered the
Estimates of the Department of Mines yet?


Georges Henri Boivin: The Department of
Mines forms part of the Department of the Interior. It is under the same minister. We have already gone into the Estimates of the Department of the Interior.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before we
begin the discussion, I would like to ask my right hon. friend if he intends to keep the House very long this evening? We were here until half past two o'clock this morning.


George Green Foster: Not very long, and we will take up Estimates to-morrow.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Normally, how many
men are employed in the Geological Survey, and how many men are now in the employ of that branch?


Mr. TOLMIE :: There are 219 employees in the Mines Branch altogether and 55 vacancies at the present time. In the Geological Survey there are 115 employees at the present time, and when the department is working to its full limit we have 150.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: How many of the
men in this department are being sent into what is known as the Fort Norman-Mackenzie district this year?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Four parties.


John Frederick Johnston: How are they being transported from Edmonton into that district?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Very largely by canoes,
by river and lake.


Frank S. Cahill: Why does the department continue a statistician on the pay roll when there is a chief statistician?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: He still remains in the
department, although his functions have been transferred to the Bureau of Statistics.


Frank S. Cahill: Is there not some attempt on the part of the Government to bring all the statistical branches within one department? They seem to have been at this now for two or three years. Will this office be transferred, or is it the intention to continue the branch in this department?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This will be transferred
as soon as the Bureau of Statistics is prepared to take it.	.


Frank S. Cahill: That is not a very satisfactory answer, although it may be quite satisfactory from the minister's standpoint. The Bureau of Statistics was organized a few years ago. It seems to be very slow in getting in the different statisticians from other departments. What is the real trouble? Is it that the minister is not able to make this department a success and to get all these other statisticians under it?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Bureau of Statistics now have some of their staff familiarizing themselves with what is going on in the Department of Mines, and just as soon as they are ready to take over that work, it will be taken over. We expect it will be completed in a short time.


Frank S. Cahill: Will it be completed
before next session?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am not a prophet, but I think there is every indication that it will be.


Frank S. Cahill: A man does not have to be a prophet to answer that if he is in control of a department. It is not necessarily a prophet's job at all.


John Archibald Campbell: The minister was
good enough to state the number of officials in the Geological Survey. Would he state into what divisions they are divided, and the number in each?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sure the committee would have no objection to the minister giving an answer. The chairman does not want to intervene except to say

that any lengthy discussion on this subject would not be strictly in order. There is a special item for the Geological Survey, which will be found on page 53 of the Estimates, and, of course, it is the duty of the Chairman to prevent the same discussion upon two seperate items.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There are ten divisions in the Geological Survey.	_


Mr. HALBERT:: I should like to ask in connection with this item for inspector of explosives whether the department has investigated a new explosive known as Thompsonite?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have no information regarding any such explosive.


John Archibald Campbell: I should like to get an answer to my question. The minister has stated that there are ten divisions of the Geological Survey. As to the point the Chairman raised, I do not wish to enter into a discussion of matters that would come up under some other item, but the item we are now discussing is the salaries of the different members of the Mines division, which, of course, includes the geologists, and I therefore think my question would be in order.


Frank S. Cahill: I notice that we are asked to provide the salary for a junior purchasing agent. How many more purchasing agents are we going to have? Will this man still continue with the department or will he be merged with the new Purchasing Commission?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is only one purchasing agent in the department.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the nature of his work? Under closure we have voted one-sixth of the salaries for a Purchasing Commission, and I should like to know what necessity there is for retaining a purchasing agent in each department if we are going to have a commission to control the purchasing for all the departments.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This purchasing agent
calls for tenders, assembles the work, and operates through the Purchasing Commission.


Frank S. Cahill: An I to understand that the purchasing agents in the different departments are to be continued, and that the Purchasing Commission is really a superfluous body created merely for the purpose of making jobs for certain friends of the Government?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: This man is retained bemuse we find him useful.


Ernest Lapointe: I suggested to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few minutes ago that as we sat until 2.30 this morning it would be advisable to adjourn after this item had passed. He is no longer in the House, but I should like to know whether the agreement stands with the other minister?


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear the
agreement, but undoubtedly if the Minister of Trade and Commerce made it, we on this side will adhere to it.


Ernest Lapointe: He said: Yes, we will go into Supply to-morrow.


John Archibald Campbell: I think I am entitled to an answer to my question. I asked how many divisions there were in the Geological Survey, and how many officers there were in each division. I do not think that question refers to the item on page 53 at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not exactly rule the question out of order, but merely drew the attention of the committee to the fact that it would be well not to enter into any lengthy discussion on this item.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The divisions are as follows : drafting division, division of mineralogy, boring division, photographic division, geologists division, library division, topographical division, and the paleontological division.


John Archibald Campbell: Referring to the geologists division, what is the normal number of geologists employed by the department? I notice that we are providing salaries for eleven geologists. I understand that normally, when the department was running properly, there were more geologists than eleven.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There are 11 geologists' nositions, with 4 vacancies; 10 associate geologists, with 3 vacancies; 4 assistant geologists, with 2 vacancies.


John Archibald Campbell: Did these vacancies occur during last year, why did they occur, and why are they not being filled?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: They have occurred since April 1920. The positions have not been filled because up to the present time it has been found impossible to secure men possessing the necessary qualifications.


John Archibald Campbell: Due to the salary
offered?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is one of the reasons, I presume. .


John Archibald Campbell: Are there any other
reasons?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There has been a strong demand for geologists within the last year or so owing to various developments, particularly in oil, and the strongest demand has come from private corporations, which have been able to pay very much higher salaries than the Government has paid.


John Archibald Campbell: What is the regular
salary paid geologists by the Government?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: From $3,300 to $4,200.


John Archibald Campbell: And what is usually
paid by outside corporations?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: From $5,000 to $6,000,
and in some cases as high as $7,000.


John Archibald Campbell: Have any of these
men who have left the department gone into universities? If so, how many?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand that three have gone to universities.


John Archibald Campbell: There has been considerable discussion in this House on different occasions in regard to our natural resources. Now, before natural resources can be developed they must be discovered, and the work of the geological survey is to locate certain of our resources and give necessary information regarding them. This is a very important work and is being done in an excellent manner by the department, so far as they are able to accomplish any results with the staff they have. I understand that instead of 18 or 20 men, which is the number the staff should comprise, there are at present only 11, and this number is utterly inadequate to the necessity in a country like this. I am sure the department must be considerably handicapped at present. As the minister has shown, the salaries paid are altogether too low for the class of men required. I know instances of men in the Geological Survey, receiving salaries ranging from $2,300 to $2,700, who have left the department and gone into universities, getting, to start with, from $3,000 to $4,000, with the prospect of an increase to $6,000, and, in addition to this, five months off in the summer, during which they can earn from $1,500 to $3,000 by special work in their line. The universities are not noted for paying particularly high salaries, and surely an important department like this should be able to pay men of this class higher salaries than they can receive from

these institutions. I am informed that men have left the department to go into private concerns at much larger salaries than they were receiving from the department, although they would prefer working under the department if the remuneration they received were commensurate with the importance of the duties they perform, and bore some reasonable relation to the salaries they can get outside. There is a certain line of work in the department which attracts men of this stamp, and they are prepared to take a little less than is offered in mercantile pursuits; but the discrepancy is so great at present that these men have perforce to leave the department, and so their valuable services are lost to the country. The work of locating our natural resources is consequently retarded to a great extent; and, as I have said, unless we can locate those resources, we cannot develop them. I plead strongly for an increase in the salaries paid these highly technical experts, men who have spent years in the service, are graduates of universities, and have important degrees. It is in the interests of the department and of the Country generally that there should be a readjustment of the schedule of wages in this direction. I feel strongly about this matter, because I live in a part of the country where I come across the work which these geologists and their parties are carrying on, and I cannot too strongly emphasize the importance of their work.


Mr. CURRIE:: Can the hon. gentleman
point to any resources or mines located by government engineers? That is .not their business; it is not their business to go prospecting.


John Archibald Campbell: 4 I know an instance where a departmental geologist, in exploring certain territory where there were some mining properties, suggested that an investigation might profitably be made of a certain part of that territory. He was not a prophet and could not, of course, guarantee results, but on the strength of his suggestion, this investigation was made and very material and important results did follow. In other instances, territories are mapped out, the character of the land and the strata is set out in pamphlets, and this information is available to those interested. Frequently the dissemination of this information attracts people into some particular district, with the result that discoveries of no small importance are made.


Mr. MORPHY:: I entirely disagree with the proposition of the hon. member that large salaries should be paid to university professors, whether they pose as geologists or not. It seems to me that the man in the district is the one who should receive consideration. Cobalt was discovered by a man who did not know the scientific nature of silver. He tripped on a bar of something in his rovings and took it to a commercial man who had the money to get it examined, and it was found to be silver. I would give the money to the man on the spot in the district, the man who prospects and who needs it.


John Archibald Campbell: The hon. member has not fairly stated my point, but that is immaterial. If he is right, why have technical experts at all? Why not rely on the men who discover these things by accident?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Technical experts have their place, but they have not the genius for exploration. They are paid good salaries under the segis of the Government, but the men in the far west and north, who have the spirit of adventure and discovery, are the men who have done the best work in the discovery of precious minerals. I would ask the Government, if they are going to do anything to help in the development of our resources, to look at the districts where minerals are found, see the intrepid men, the men with pluck, energy and courage, and give them some assistance or encouragement by way of bounty, so that they may go forth and add fresh laurels to their achievements. We have had a university man in the person of Professor McCallum, for some ten or twelve years, and I have been waiting all this time to discover what he has done.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Research work.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, it is research, but we have never had any report, as to the results which have attended the payment of the moneys he has received from us.
I think my principle is right. If a university professor-already having a sinecure, identified with one of the great universities, having a salary sufficient to support himself and his family-is given a job beyond that which he already had, I think the very finest credentials should be put forward by him. I prefer to take the man who lives in the north and the west, who has done things himself, who has a passion for doing things, who has the spirit of adventure and discovery and I prefer to spend the country's money on that man rather

than to give it to any university professors because I have seen some of these university professors in the north. They go out with a pair of goggles, a leather mit, and a wonderful hammer made especially to crack rocks and they look wise; I have been struck with the appearance of wisdom that some of them possess. On the other hand I have seen the man that did the work and made, a record. That man whom perhaps somebody staked, has gone into the unknown and has got better results, with the expenditure of less money, than has the university professor.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I may [DOT] say in reply to the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) that the department is already taking up the matter of salaries with the Civil Service Commission and we expect results very shortly.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the minister mean university professors?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not know whether they are university professors or not. We are not hiring university professors-field men are what this department is using.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Hear, hear.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I may say that I do not quite agree with the last speaker in not giving, perhaps as full credit to the scientific man in the field as is due him. Coming from the province of British Columbia I remember very well the very excellent and accurate work done by the late Dr. George M. Dawson, Chief Geologist of the Department of Mines. As a result of the work he did in British Columbia that province has been able to furnish prospectors with information which has materially assisted them to discover very fine locations of minerals that have proved paying properties. As I say the late Dr. Dawson did very excellent work, particularly in connection with our coal fields on Vancouver Island. Then again a geologist one of the Government men, in the case of the Ross-land mines, was able to give the owners certain information that has prolonged the life of those mines situated on the hill at Rossland, B.C. Furthermore, oil was located in the Mackenzie River basin by Mr. McConnell, another geologist, who was in the department over thirty years ago. I presume those oil discoveries would have been developed long before this, had it not been that the district was so difficult of access. A geologist for the department also located gypsum in northern Manitoba and the coal fields in Saskatchewan. Out in our
province we usually think that the work of assisting the prospector in the field comes within the purview of the Provincial Government rather than that of the Federal Department of Mines and they, look to the prospector, to some extent, in British Columbia to discover new districts containing minerals.


John Archibald Campbell: I would like to say to my hon. friend from North Perth that in my remarks I was not referring to university professors but to experts belonging to the Geological Survey Department. Following up the line taken by the minister I would say that I have in mind a certain ex-member of that department who spent several seasons in northern Manitoba, and who has given very valuable information to mining engineers and to prospectors generally-in fact the prospectors to whom such tribute was paid by my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy), were very loud in their praises of this particular gentleman because of the help he gave them in their work of looking for minerals in that country. As far as this ex-member of the Survey was concerned, I understand he had been working for the Government for approximately six years. He was a graduate of a Canadian University and received another degree from an overseas university. At the time he left the employ of the Government he was receiving the princely salary of $2,300 or thereabouts. He left to take a position in a university at a salary of $3,800 which will be increased annually to a considerable amount. The fact of the matter is these men cannot stay with the department under present conditions. The man to whom I refer was not in any way like the professors discribed by my hon. friend form North Perth; he was an actual worker in the field and did just as hard, onerous and arduous work as any of the prospectors in the country.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to delay the passing of the item, but I would like to say that this is a subject that is discussed in the technical mining press, and every prospector and every mining engineer in the country is invited to condemn this Government because it does not increase the salaries of the members of the staff of the Geological Survey in order to keep them in the public service, rather than let them go to private companies. We ought to look at the matter from the point of view of the interests of the country at large-that is the right view for the committee to take. A man attached to the

Geological Survey here is not an expert in the same sense as a man who takes charge of practical mining operations. The man _in the department goes round to places where it is heard that discoveries have been made and takes maps of that section of the country. He goes over the various mines and describes them in reports, many of which you will find in the department here. That ends his work; he expresses no opinion to the public, and is not supposed to express any, as to whether these mines are of value or not. That is a very primitive way of dealing with the question. It is only within recent years that the department has gone to the length, following the lead of the United States and of the Ontario Government, of making what is known as topographical and geological surveys of these sections of the country where we have mines. That is now being done to some extent but it is not done generally; and knowing as I do, the volumes that are published by the department, I must say that for years thousands of dollars were spent by the geologists of the department in writing stories of the nice canoe trips they took on Great Slave lake, and other inland waters, where now everybody is finding oil. I am not casting any reflections on the department, no doubt it is serving its purpose, but the mine owners need men who will go down a mine and tell them where the fault is and where to find the ore. That is a different story altogether. These men that have left the department are taken away by mining corporations who want to have men in their service who will go down in their mines, who will examine their properties, and then give them practical advice. These men are following a much more useful occupation by being in private employ than being in the employ of this Government, although we would1 like particularly to have them.
I have failed yet to find out any substantial discovery made by the department. Their men may have told that they had seen signs of certain minerals or something of that kind. I know that geologists of the department have slammed .some of the best mining properties that we have in the country. Take the Helen mine in Michipi-coten. That was discovered by a Government geologist who reported the following winter that there were not more than eighteen inches of iron there and that the property would not amount to anything, although subsequently several millions of dollars worth of ore was taken out of the property. It is also well known that Gov-	.
ernment geologists predicted that Cobalt would only last about three years-that although there was conglomerate on the surface, silver did not exist in the lower strata. To-day millions of dollars are be- -ing taken out of that lower strata. It is the same all over. It is impossible for any man, unless he is employed in the actual operation of a mine, to go, as my hon. friend said "with a pair of goggles on and a hammer," and say, "this is going to be a mine or this is not going to be a mine." Nevertheless the action of the Government in having a staff of excellent men going over the country, making thorough geological and topographical maps and discovering the fractures of the earth, and all that sort of thing, is no doubt going to lead to great advances in the future. But there is nothing drawn so far as the department is concerned. I do not see how they could retain very high priced men to do this simple field work, which is of a purely superficial character, when there are lots of good companies that will pay those men high salaries to look after their mines.


John Archibald Campbell: What would be a fair salary for a field man?


John Allister Currie: I think the salary paid
by the department is fairly reasonable, $4,000.


John Archibald Campbell: They do not pay that; that is the point.


John Allister Currie: What do they pay them, $3,500?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 


John Allister Currie: I knew that, because I . have been following the matter, as I say, in the Mining Journal. That is not a bad salary. There are many professional men, such as lawyers and doctors, who have spent just as much time in study and who in private practice are not able to make one-half that salary. For the work the Government demands the pay is excellent. But if the Government is to send experts to tell mine owners what to do with their mines, I do not think one half the owners would pay any attention to their advice. Those owners have their own views on mining matters. So far as discoveries are concerned, their mine superintendents understand their work thoroughly, and the history of mining shows that those are the men who make the actual discoveries. I do not say anything about the men who have left the department. They have been

added to the sum total of the operating forces of our mines, and the work they are doing now is much more useful to the country at large than if they were sitting in their departmental offices in Ottawa or going out surveying and smoking their pipes in their canoes.


John Archibald Campbell: But many of those men have gone out of the country.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend has been speaking of the mines in his part of the country. There is one large mining property there, the Flin Flon, and it is said that when the ore in sight is worked out it is questionable whether the mine will pay for operation. The Mandy mine, which has produced millions of tons of ore containing a very high grade of copper, is said now to be practically exhausted, and I have no doubt that fifty per cent of the geologists who look at it will swear that not another pound of ore will be got from that mine.


John Archibald Campbell: Who says that?


John Allister Currie: I have seen that stated in the technical press.


John Archibald Campbell: Is the hon. gentleman aware of the price of copper to-day?


John Allister Currie: I know all about that just as well as the hon. gentleman does. I read the technial press. According to the information I gather from that press the so-called technical experts consider that the Mandy mine is played out.


John Archibald Campbell: It is not. '


John Allister Currie: The expert who went
over the Hollinger mine, which is to-day the greatest gold mine in the world, gave an adverse report to the McMartin Brothers, and it was only their courage and practical knowledge that decided them to develop the property, and they put $50,000,000 into it before they quit. With reference to coal mining, that is a little different, because it is largely surface work, and if a proper topographical survey is made something can be shown of what the result is likely to be. But there are coal mines in British Columbia where the experts said there were millions of tons of coal, but which after development, owing to crushers and squeezers, were found to be practically worthless. Nevertheless I say the technical experts of to-day are of great use to mine owners. Take the iron mines of Michigan and Wisconsin. The majority
of them were deserted a few years ago and it was said there was no more ore in them. Some of the mining professors of Wisconsin, who made a study of iron mining, came to the conclusion that the iron ore lay along certain contacts in those mines, and the diamond drill proved there were millions of tons of ore available; but there were other mines that the diamond drill went into without finding any ore. I do not think the department is to blame. We wish the men who have left every success, and when they get tired of working for private firms I hope the department will have good jobs ready for them. I am sorry I have occupied so much time, but I wanted to clarify the air.


John Archibald Campbell: I think the hon. gentleman who has just sat down should give his authority for the statement regarding certain mining properties in Manitoba, particularly the Flin Flon and the Mandy, because my information is entirely contrary to his. In my opinion his statements are entirely erroneous.


John Allister Currie: I hope they are.


John Archibald Campbell: They are.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not like the minister in charge of these Estimates, who is not the minister of the department, to get in wrong with the historical references in regard to oil. It is said to-night that a man named Caron-whom I do not know, but I presume he is a professor-has rendered great service to the department.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I referred to Mr. Mc-
Connell, the late deputy minister of the department.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes. It was said that
he had rendered great service to the department by locating oil in the Mackenzie Basin. I know that in the Interior Department and in the Statistical Branch there are unimpeachable records that Mackenzie, who gave his name to the Mackenzie river, nearly one hundred years ago found the natives gathering oil from the surface of pools, showing unmistakeable evidence that oil was superabundant there. That Mr. McConnell-I think he was a professor when he set up that claim-could thirty years ago put himself forward as discoverer of oil in that district would lead me to think that some one in the department had-to use a word that I do not intend to be offensive-been "stringing" the acting minister that he and not Mackenzie was the discoverer of these great oil districts. It seems to me there is just

that trouble in the departments here-I have seen it before in this House-that men to impress upon the ministers or acting ministers of their great value, set up claims that have no foundation in fact.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne for the adjournment of the House:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand the Government intend going on with Estimates to-morrow. Can the minister indicate what departments?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Whatever Government business is on the Order Paper will be advanced as well as the Estimates we have already entered upon, and in addition to those the Militia and Labour Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: Might I suggest that
a general statement "whatever business is on the Order Paper will be advanced," is not very helpful. It would be desirable, if possible, on these occasions that some intimation should be given as to the particular business to be taken up. Some hon. members are specially interested in certain matters and not in others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to the Militia Estimates, do I understand that the minister intends that that should be
taken up by consent, or is it proposed to go into them without any consent?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I
really do not think this is the proper time, on the motion for the adjournment of
the House, which is not debatable, to discuss a point of order concerning the right that the Government may have to bring up certain Estimates at another sitting with or without consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to press the question at the moment, but I think the Government should be willing to make matters as definite as possible.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I thought I made it clear enough. I said we intended to take up some of the Estimates that we have already entered upon; then, if there is any reasonable time left, we would take up Militia and Labour Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.
Friday, April 15, 1921.